Sir Ian Fraser.

On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. As you have called the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), does that mean you have not selected the new Clause—[Docking of tails]—which stands in the name of myself and five other hon. Members?

No, it has not been selected.

rose—

My selection cannot be argued. I have not selected the new Clause, and that is the end of the matter.

I was not intending to dispute your Ruling, Sir. I was only going to ask whether it would be possible for the Minister to make a statement about an agreed Bill at a later date?

That is outside this Bill. We can only deal with what is in the Bill, and docking of tails is not in the Bill. Might I also say that I have not selected the next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), in page 10, line 3, after "London" to insert "and Wales," as that was discussed in Committee and negatived.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I said a few words about the Bill. It is a matter of great satisfaction to my right hon. Friend, who is, unfortunately, unable to be here, that the two principles which form the main substance of the Bill—the extension of facilities for veterinary education and the control of unqualified practice—have met with the approval of all sides of the House. I am sure that those Members who have taken part in the discussions on this Measure will agree that it will make a considerable contribution to the improvement in our animal health, which is so urgent and essential.

I should like to deal with two matters which cropped up during the Committee stage, and into which my right hon. Friend promised to look again. One was that of aliens, which was raised by Members on both sides of the Committee. The position is that Section 13 of the Veterinary Surgeons Act, 1881, permits the registration in the Register of Veterinary Surgeons of holders of any recognised veterinary diploma granted in a British possession or in a foreign country. I need not go into details, but the essence of the matter is that the Royal College already have power to register practitioners holding recognised foreign diplomas in suitable cases, so that no new powers in that respect appear to be required.

The second question was whether it would be possible for an unqualified man, now to be registered, to enter into a partnership with a veterinary surgeon? The particular case that was evidently most in mind was that of a father who was himself unqualified, but who wanted to take into partnership his qualified son. We were asked whether it would not be unfair if they were not permitted to enter into partnership together. I understand that it would not be regarded as proper for a registered veterinary surgeon to enter into partnership with an unregistered person. Indeed, by a by-law of the Royal College, a veterinary surgeon is precluded from assisting an unregistered person by his presence, countenance, advice, assistance or co-operation in attending an animal in respect of matters requiring professional discretion and skill. This ban, however, did not apply to existing practitioners registered under the Act of 1881. Partnerships between persons registered in the Veterinary Surgeons' Register and in the Register of Existing Practitioners were allowed. I would point out that persons registered in the Supplementary Register will, similarly, have a status in the profession, and will be subject to the same rules of discipline and professional conduct as registered veterinary surgeons.

I expect the House will agree with me that the question of what should constitute professional conduct in matters such as this is best left to the governing body of the profession to decide; but the precedent I have mentioned suggests that the decision in this particular case is likely to be the sensible and practical one, and I think we can safely leave it there. I do not think I need do more than add an expression of gratitude on behalf of my right hon. Friend and myself to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, and to others outside, who have given us great assistance and encouragement, for their help in getting this Bill through the House, and so enabling us to add one more to the growing number of agricultural Measures which stand to the credit of this Government and of my right hon. Friend since we came into power.

I am grateful that I have caught your eye, Sir, on this occasion, and that I am able to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary and, through him, his right hon. Friend, on what I believe to be a good Bill. It has certain omissions which we all deeply regret and to which I cannot now, unfortunately, refer, but no doubt I can have a word with the Parliamentary Secretary afterwards to see whether anything can be done about the very powerful demand that has come from all parts of the House.

This Bill depends on one thing for its success, and that is the profession itself. In my opinion, those who lead it will have to exercise wisdom, tolerance and a certain amount of judgment. It will give the profession a great status which is well merited and which will carry with it, at the same time, obligations and opportunities. Much will depend on whether the leaders of the profession and the practitioners themselves live up to the great opportunity that is now presenting itself. Many new and so-called unqualified men are being admitted to the Register but, on the other hand, they have to subscribe to certain standards of skill, conduct and character. I imagine that their closer integration and co-operation with the older and qualified members of the profession will quickly bring them up to the high standard of ability and capacity that is now prevalent throughout the profession.

One or two points which arose in Committee created, I think, unnecessary heat, and certainly an unnecessary amount of correspondence with Members of Parliament. One was about the name which should be given to new entrants and their general status. We all recognise, and I think the profession will recognise now, that this is a purely passing phase, that these new entrants will inevitably become permanent practitioners within the profession, and that in due course all members of the profession will subscribe to the qualifications laid down by the Council of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I am glad that there are these safeguards both for the profession itself and also for the would-be entrants. The profession, for the first time, has constitutional powers of discipline. Those who are guilty of unbecoming conduct can be expelled, but happily there is a safeguard giving the defendant the right of appeal. That goes a long way beyond the Acts of Parliament giving similar powers to doctors and dentists, because neither of those Acts of Parliament gives the same rights and powers as the veterinary profession has in this case. I can only hope that it will exercise these powers wisely and in its own best interests.

When the Minister replies, I hope he will make some reference to the point that was raised in Committee but which was ruled out of Order today by you, Mr. Speaker. It would be a great comfort to many in this House and outside who feel very strongly on this subject. We now leave this Bill in the hands of those who will have to administer it. I believe it is in the best interests of those who practise in the profession and who have so deservedly earned a debt of gratitude for their services both in war and in peace. I wish them good luck and Godspeed in the future.

I am afraid that all the matters on which I feel particularly strongly in this Bill have now been ruled out of Order. I respect your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but naturally it is a matter of very great regret to me and to my Welsh colleagues that we shall have no further opportunity of ventilating what we believe to be a very genuine grievance in this matter. I should like to say—Land I hope that in saying it I shall be in Order—that while the provisions of the Bill and the intentions behind them are highly desirable, it should be remembered that they are very limited and of a narrow character.

I hope that in the months and years to come, the Minister, when considering the implementation of this Bill, will bear in mind that the real intention is to provide this country with a wider and more general service in the field of veterinary science. If that is to be produced, the powers and scope of the Bill will have to be widened, and there will have to be far greater facilities for training in all spheres. In the sphere in which I and my Welsh colleagues are particularly interested, it will be necessary for the Minister to give full consideration to the arguments that have been put forward. Having said that, I hope the Minister will look upon the representations which will be made to him in that regard with the greatest possible sympathy.

I had not the advantage of being a Member of the Standing Committee which dealt with this Bill, but I have read its proceedings, as I am very interested in the Bill, and I should like to say a word or two before it finally leaves this House. The Bill completes the process of regularising the professions dealing with human beings and animals. I remember in the old days in medicine we had qualified assistants. They were very fine men, and they knew a great deal about the human body. Eventually, through the passage of a Bill in this House, they became registered, and very fine medical practitioners they made. The same can be said of dentistry. Under a Measure that was passed, these unqualified dentists were allowed to enter the profession and become registered. Now we are doing the same thing for the veterinary surgeon.

So far as the Principality of Wales is concerned, there is a considerable body of men who come within this unqualified class. They are first-class men with a wonderful intuition and knowledge of the animal kingdom in all its branches. Some of them are so able and practical that many farmers seek their advice in preference to that of a fully qualified veterinary surgeon. Under the law, of course, they are bound to seek advice from those who are professionally qualified, and I would not for one moment say that that is not always the right course to take, because unqualified knowledge can sometimes be dangerous. It is only fair to say that, so far as Wales is concerned, the work done by this class of unqualified veterinary practitioner over many years has been excellent and has contributed very materially to the welfare of animals in the Principality.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), under your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, I am, of course, debarred from ventilating a matter which we had hoped to ventilate if you, in your judgment, had called the Amendment in the names of some hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies. However, I hope I shall be allowed to say that this Bill will not be complete in regard to the setting up of university courses in the United Kingdom until Wales has charge of its own science and scientific experiments and is permitted to develop veterinary science within the Principality itself. I trust that the Minister will again review the matter.

In the Committee stage of this Measure, the question was raised as to whether it was right that persons like therapists, masseurs, and bonesetters should be permitted to practise on animals. The Minister gave us an assurance that he would see whether, under Clause 5, it would be possible to make an order to license such persons to practice. I want to ask whether inquiries in that respect have been fruitful or not.

Whatever is the answer to that question, I want to register a protest against the limitations placed upon the practice of these people. We have this extraordinary anomaly, that whereas I can call in a physio-therapist, a masseur or bonesetter—even Sir Herbert Barker himself—to treat my daughter's ankle, I could not call in any of these gentlemen to treat my racehorse's fetlock. It seems rather absurd to place this limitation on skilled persons, and I cannot see the reason for the difference between the limitation placed where animals are concerned and that placed where human beings are concerned. Will the Minister tell me whether these persons can practise under licence or whether there is any possibility, even now, of altering the Measure to prevent this anomaly from occurring?

Like other hon. Members on this side of the House, I agree with the principles contained in this Bill, and should like to say that we wish it well in its operation when it becomes law. There are, however, one or two points to which I draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. The first is on the general principle that the trouble in which we find ourselves today is due to the serious shortage of veterinary surgeons. I hope the Ministry will go very carefully in regard to the proposed target. We had a discussion on this point in Committee, and we understood from the Government that the target likely to be achieved is 220 students per year coming from the veterinary colleges throughout the country. Is that sufficient? We should probably be in agreement that it is not sufficient, and, while welcoming this Bill, I urge the Government to give the most careful consideration to this point and to do their utmost to get a higher target at the earliest possible date.

That brings me to the points raised by the hon. Members for Denbigh (Sir H. Morris-Jones) and Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), so far as Wales is concerned. There is nothing in the Bill to exclude Wales from receiving the full benefits of the Bill, but I would like to draw the Government's attention to the fact that the Principality is really very advanced in this field of veterinary science, and that it has a number of herds which have been cleared of bovine tuberculosis. As the hon. Member for Denbigh said, there are, in addition to the qualified veterinary surgeons, a large number of good men who have given great service to agriculture, and I think that the more they can be encouraged, and the more young students can be encouraged, to join the veterinary profession, the better it will be for the national interest. On behalf of my hon. Friends, I hope the Government will pay particular attention to that point in the operation of the Measure.

The Parliamentary Secretary explained the position concerning the qualified and unqualified practitioners coming together in partnership, and I gathered from what he said that in the operation of this Measure, so far as those who come under the Supplementary Register are concerned, the lines of the Act of 1881 will be followed, and, therefore, it will be possible for father and son to go into partnership. Will the hon. Gentleman say a further word or two on that subject?

As to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), we had a considerable discussion on the treatment which could be given to animals, and we admitted, in Committee, that it would probably be a limited number of animals which will be treated by physiotherapy. I think we were satisfied by the Minister, in Committee, that, under Clause 5 (2, b), the Minister can make an order whereby this treatment can be given, as well as electrical treatment for animals, particularly horses. The Parliamentary Secretary did not refer to that in his remarks today, and we should like from him the assurance which was given the Committee that it will be possible for these people to treat animals, as they have done heretofore. We appreciated, during an earlier stage of the Bill, that the Minister said that these people would be able to practise, provided that a veterinary surgeon recommended that such treatment should be given to the animals.

Those are the further points which have emerged from the passage of the Bill through the House. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), who said that he thought a very great deal of heat had been generated as to the possible name of the new entrants to the Supplementary Register. That is a point upon which we on this side of the House do not and cannot see eye to eye with the Government, but, the point having been debated both in another place and here during Second Reading and on the Committee Stage, I do not see that any useful purpose would be served by going into the arguments again now.

The Bill is now passing from this House and will soon be on the Statute Book. I would only add the hope that the profession will give its wholehearted support to the Measure because, at the end of the day, its success will depend upon the drive which is put into it by the members of the profession throughout the length and breadth of the country.

By leave of the House, I should like to say a few words in reply to some of the points that have been raised. On the question of the shortage of veterinary surgeons, it is true that the Government are concerned—and, by this Bill, have demonstrated their concern—that we should, in fact, increase as rapidly as is convenient and wise—and I emphasise that—the number of qualified people in the veterinary profession, who are so important for improving the health of our herds, and, because of that, the health of the people. There is a longterm view to be taken here as well as the short-term view. I repeat that nothing would be more foolish, or could do more harm to the interests of veterinary science at this stage than to encourage a lot of young men to go through this expensive and long training if they could not, in fact, be sure of a position when they had completed it.

Therefore, while one does not want to err on the side of overcaution, one has to remember that people have to go on working for some time ahead, and what we have done is to take the advice of the Loveday Committee, which gave the fullest attention to this matter and took into account all the important considerations, including the availability of teaching staff, the availability of buildings and the opportunties available to people as they come forward. What we have done is to provide for a number of teaching centres and to aim to raise our technique of veterinary science so as to produce 220 new entrants a year, which we think is about right.

I would, however, repeat with such emphasis as I can command what the hon. Baronet said—that there is nothing in this Bill to limit the output to 220 a year. We feel that is where we should begin. Clause 1 is as wide as can be and gives the Privy Council power to authorise any university to do the job if it can show that it can do the job properly. Therefore, the University of Wales—I hope there will be no anxiety or upset among our friends in the Principality because there is no reason for it—or any other university is authorised to give courses as soon as it is clear that they have all the facilities and that it would be wise to raise the sights a little higher than the figure we now have.

How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile his statement that that is what the Loveday Committee has reported, with what the Loveday Committee reported in 1938—that other universities had been discouraged from undertaking veterinary instruction because of an official statement that aid from public funds would not be forthcoming and by a provision in the Charter reconstituting the Council of the R.C.V.S. that no other university should be represented on the Council?

We are getting rather confused. What I said was that, taking the figure of 220 at the beginning, we had taken the advice of the Committee and were following their views on that. The hon. Gentleman has galloped on to say that the Committee also said that other things should be done which we have not done. I was not necessarily saying that we took all the advice about everything which the Loveday Committee gave us. I said that in fixing the figure of 220, so far we were taking their advice. I have sat under Dr. Loveday on a similar committee, and I know full well how much care and attention he gives to getting the right kind of answer to a question of this kind.

Clause 1 is as wide as can be, and any university which can show that it can do the job can be authorised if it appears to the people concerned—the Privy Council and the others—that the 220 will not be enough and that we ought to raise the sights. Therefore, the Principality can be quite happy. No door is shut to it. I say that with all the emphasis I can, hoping that it will be some comfort to my hon. Friends. I ought to say that I gladly pay my tribute to the work which has been done in the Principality about the clearance of T.B. from herds. As a member of the minority race from England, I hope it will not be long before we catch up with the very great lead given to us by our friends in the Principality.

On the question of partnerships, the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond (Sir T. Dugdale) interpreted what I said in a wider sense than I intended. I said that this seems to us to be a matter of professional etiquette and a professional code of conduct, and that we ought really to leave it to the professional body to deal with and that it is not for us to prejudge the issue or lay down here what should be done about a professional code. On the other hand, once before they had to deal with the same situation, and they took the view that partnerships could be entered into between the two classes existing at that date, the then registered existing practitioners and the qualified men, and I said that I felt quite sure that what was then the practical and sensible step would again be taken. However, we must leave it to them to do.

The hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) raised the point about physiotherapists. The assurance of my right hon. Friend was not quite the assurance to which he referred today. We did not say that we would look into the Bill to see whether it is possible to make an order. In fact, it is possible to make an order. What my right hon. Friend and I said was that between now and the point at which an order would have to be made—namely, in a year's time; the point cannot arise for the first year—we will give the most careful and sympathetic consideration to the actual making of an order. It is possible to do it, and it is our intention very sympathetically and fully to consider what sort of an order we can make, and to consider making such an order before the time when the need arises. The only ban we have in mind is a ban on diagnosis, and not on treatment. We are very sympathetic to the idea that these people should be permitted to treat the animals, but we feel that the diagnosis should be carried out by a qualified veterinary surgeon.

No justification has been given to support that contention. As I said, I could call in Sir Herbert Barker to diagnose and treat my child's ankle, but not to treat my racehorse's fetlock. Why?

At this stage I ought not to go further into details. We had a most interesting discussion about that during the Committee stage. On the whole, hon. Members felt that the course we were taking was about right. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to refer to that discussion and absolve me from going into details again. We think we are about right, and I am sure that the cause he has at heart will not suffer as a result of what we are proposing to do.

No other invitation has been held out to me, except the invitation of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) to involve myself with you, Mr. Speaker, by getting out of Order. I prefer not to do that. I will wind up with a word about titles. We have discussed that subject at some length during the passage of the Bill. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond and the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs that it is now a matter for the profession to forget whatever arose during the discussions. For good or ill, we have embarked on a course which everybody agrees will ultimately be in the interests of the profession. How much it will be so depends on them and the outside world. How quickly all that has gone before will be forgotten depends on them. We are sure that we shall have the fullest co-operation from the profession.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 30, at the end, to insert

"but so that the said sections shall be applied with such adaptations and modifications as may be made by regulations made by the Minister."

This is really a consequential Amendment. It now appears that the terms of Section 99 of the Act will need some adaptation or modification so that it can properly apply to Clause 2 (2) of the Bill. In particular, without some adaptation it may be that there will be no obligation to have a certificate of fitness if the young person does not continue to be employed on the same building site or, on repair work, on the same ship for more than seven days. The power we are asking for adaptation and modification by regulations is recognised in the 1937 Act in Sections 106 (1 d), 107 (2) and 108 (2, c). In applying some of the provisions of the Act to cases referred to in Sections 105 to 108 some adaptation is needed. That Act confers on the Minister powers to make adapting regulations for that purpose. These, we are advised, are not sufficient to cover the Sections which it is now proposed to apply in these cases for the first time. Therefore, we are asking that we shall have for the new Clauses and for the Clauses brought forward by this Bill, powers of adaptation similar to those which already exist in the Act and which have proved of very great value during the operation of the previous Measure.

I wish to say a few words on this Clause, and I do so in the full knowledge that this Bill is not an attempt to amend the law in the fullest sense as, perhaps, we would wish. This Clause, which allows the factory doctor to act in his old capacity as the examining surgeon, is open to certain objections. I know that with the passing of the new Industrial Injuries Act the same temptation for a doctor to be biased in his decision is not present; nevertheless, the operative in the factory should be convinced that whenever he desires to appeal to a medical examiner as to whether his complaint is caused by his industrial operation, the decision will be in accordance with the facts as that medical examiner sees them.

This Clause enables the doctor, who may have certain wide interests in a firm, apart from the day to day work of the factory, to act not only as the factory doctor but also to examine the work-people for day to day ailments or injuries. An operative in such a factory may get a skin disease such as dermatitis. It may be certified by his own medical practitioner as dermatitis, but it may be objected that it is not caused by his work. I agree I am on dangerous ground here because of the alteration in the law, and perhaps dermatitis is not an apt illustration. However, I want to make the point that the man may feel he has a complaint which will give him a right of appeal to a civil court as being something that ought not to be present in that factory; his own doctor may certify that he is suffering from a given complaint, and the doctor who normally examines the people in the factory, who has a business connection with the firm, may be appointed factory doctor under this Clause.

Therefore, when the man makes his appeal he finds he is going to a doctor not only closely connected with the firm on business grounds, but also operating there from day to day. That doctor could, by his advice to the firm, inform the firm whether certain operations may be dangerous in so far as certain spirits used for cleansing the materials could cause such a disease. I submit that it is dangerous to allow this to take place, and if it is at all possible to prevent it by future legislation or by regulation, it should be made impossible for the men inside the factory to feel that justice is not being done.

I should like to support the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Attewell) and to call the attention of the Minister to the remarks which he made on the Second Reading of this Bill last week. He quoted then what he said in opening the Debate a few weeks ago, as follows:

"it is thought that the firm's doctor would be less likely to give a certificate that it is an industrial disease arising out of the man's employment, whereas an outside doctor might give a certificate to that effect. There is that doubt, and we are anxious to discuss all the possibilities in this direction. I give a complete undertaking to examine with the most meticulous care any Amendments which may be brought forward on this subject."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th June, 1948; Vol. 451, c. 2767–8.]

On the Second Reading the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) raised matters relating to this point, and I had hoped that Amendments would have been put down on the Committee stage. Certainly the Minister last week was most amenable to receiving any such Amendments and giving them his consideration. No one can, of course, blame the Minister if Amendments have not been put down for his consideration, but would he look into the matter with an eye to the points made by the hon. Member for Rochdale last week and by the hon. Member for Harborough today, and see whether, on the Report stage, he cannot introduce some Clause which would help to relieve the fears of hon. Members on this side, and elsewhere no doubt, who are worried about this matter? The Minister would render great service if he would do that because, although no Amendments have been put down, the desire is obviously there.

The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) quite rightly reminded me of the comments I made on the Second Reading, when I said that we should be glad to consider any Amendments that were put down. None have been put down but, all the same, we have been looking carefully at this Clause. We are satisfied, that, with the coming into operation of the new Industrial Injuries Act, a great many of the possible dangers—I only say "possible dangers"—will have disappeared. I am satisfied that the charge cannot be made against the profession that doctors give certificates against their opinion. I am sure that whatever certificates they give, are given honestly and conscientiously, thinking them to be correct.

However, there always has been some little suspicion about this. Most of that will disappear under the new Act, but we are asking for this step to be taken because there has grown up in industry a widespread desire for a comprehensive medical service inside the factories. As a result many large firms located in areas which are not centres of population have themselves appointed a local medical man as their medical adviser. That medical man in those works has obtained a wide knowledge of the operations in that factory so that, when we come to appoint a factory doctor, that man is the best man in the area for the job and so we want to use him. On the other hand, we feel that if we see this developing on the initiative of employers who are anxious to have proper medical care in their factories, it is a good step towards what will ultimately come into operation in this and other countries—and, I think, in this country first—a real industrial medical service.

I can promise both my hon. Friends that I understand the feelings and doubts in their minds. It is no good my saying otherwise, because I have been one of those who have had to give voice to those doubts in the past. We shall watch this matter with care, we shall certainly have to draw up regulations about the appointments, we shall see that every possible care is taken to avoid misunderstanding, and it may be that we can meet the point which the hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) referred to last week. Where it is necessary for a certificate to be given under any of the Acts by the factory doctor, we shall see whether we cannot make arrangements whereby another opinion, other than that of the person directly concerned, is brought into the picture. I hope that, with the promise that we are aware of these problems, my hon. Friends will be satisfied that they are being carefully looked after.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 17, to leave out "either."

Perhaps it will be convenient if we consider at the same time the following Amendments in the names of my right hon. Friends and myself: in line 21, leave out from "prescribed" to end of line 24; in line 24, at end, insert:

"(2) Where in pursuance of powers given by section sixty of the principal Act or by this Act regulations are made in relation to a matter dealt with by Parts I to IV of the principal Act, no occupier shall be liable to civil or criminal proceedings for a breach of the provision of the principal Act relating to such matters if he proves that he has complied with the relevant regulations."

These three Amendments raise a point of some interest and importance. Under the principal Act—the Factories Act, 1937—the Secretary of State for the Home Department and now the Minister of Labour, as his successor in this respect, is given power to prescribe certain standards which have to be complied with by the occupiers of industrial premises on such matters as lighting, heating and ventilation. The point has arisen whether the occupier of such premises who complies with those regulations to the full, can none the less be prosecuted for a breach of the relevant provision of the Act itself. I am glad to see the Attorney-General present because he will recollect that there was a certain amount of difficulty in the case referred to on the Second reading of this Bill by the hon. and learned Member for Chester (Mr. Nield).

Subject to what the Attorney-General may say and to the fact that the matter was not left very clear in the courts in question, as I understand that decision, it was left that an occupier of industrial premises who complied with the regulations could not be prosecuted for a breach of the Act It is quite clear that Clause 8 of this Measure is intended to overrule that decision up to a point—that is to say, it is designed to give to the Minister of Labour power to choose whether the regulations he makes are to be of a kind compliance with which completely covers the occupier of industrial premises, or alternatively, of a kind which the occupier of industrial premises can comply with to the full and yet be prosecuted under the Act. One can fully understand how, from the viewpoint of administrative flexibility which is so dear to our rulers in Whitehall, that may be a desirable state of affairs; but the Committee should give full consideration to this point before conferring this power upon the Minister.

It appears somewhat unjust that where the Minister has prescribed standards—and I am perfectly certain that he will prescribe from time to time the highest standards which are reasonably practicable and the occupier of premises has complied with those standards to the full, he should run the risk, none the less, of being prosecuted under the comparable provisions of the Act. On first reading that is my impression. Considerations may well be advanced to show that in certain circumstances that is a reasonable proposition, but this is a matter to which hon. Members should give due attention.

Our object in moving this Amendment is mainly interrogative. We want to know the reasons which have caused the Government to amend, or to seek to amend, the law in this respect, and to seek to amend it in a direction which prima facie appears a trifle oppressive. That is the very short point—not necessarily one for lawyers—whether or not compliance with the Minister's regulations shall be treated as full compliance with the Act. The Minister is seeking to take powers to make regulations of two kinds, one of that kind and one of precisely the opposite kind. Our object is to seek elucidation.

What about the point of civil proceedings? The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) referred only to criminal proceedings and has merely discussed the general aspect.

I fully appreciate there is that aspect of the matter which, from my knowledge of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), he may desire to explore. The particular aspect which I desire to explore, I have explored as fully as I wish. From this point of view the criminal aspect is perhaps the more important. It may seem to the hon. and learned Member that the other aspect is an appropriate stamping ground, in which case I wish him well of it.

I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) intended to deal with all three Amendments standing in his name. Although he suggested at the outset that it might be convenient if we discussed all three I do not think his remarks covered more than one.

I was dealing with all three.

I am obliged to the hon. Member and will accordingly deal with all three. I apprehended from his remarks that he was referring only to the first one.

May I make the position quite clear, Major Milner? In accordance with what I understood to be your Ruling I formally moved the first Amendment and I discussed also the other two. If the Attorney-General feels that I did not discuss them fully enough, as we are in Committee there may be a further opportunity for me to do so.

The position I understood was that the second and third Amendments are consequential upon the first, hence all three hang together.

I am not sure that that is really the effect of the Amendments. I wanted to be quite clear so that I did not cover too wide a field in my remarks.

The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames very fairly said he was moving the Amendment for the purpose of clarification and he certainly approached the matter in a most tentative way. I am not surprised at that. I hope to be able to satisfy him that the Amendments would inevitably be inimical to the interests of factory occupiers or workmen or both. I do not know whether the hon. Member has had any consultation with the British Confederation of Employers about his proposed Amendment.

indicated dissent.

I see the hon. Member shakes his head. I can well imagine he has not consulted that important organisation. If they had had the opportunity of considering his proposals they would have held up their hands in horror and apprehension at the change in the law contemplated by this Amendment. Let us see what will be the effect of the Amendment. It would be completely to destroy what is conceived to be the true purpose of the provisions in the principal Act enabling the Minister in appropriate cases to prescribe not absolute standards, but general standards in regard to the various matters to which these Sections relate; and it would be to substitute "The Minister" for "The Courts of Justice" as the person who is to decide in a particular case what is

"adequate and suitable provision."

I am taking that particular phrase from one of the Sections; the phrases differ in the different Sections. It is exactly to avoid that situation that Clause 8 was introduced into the Bill, so as, in general, to leave it to the Courts of Justice to decide what, subject to a possible minimum standard laid down by the Minister in regard to particular factories or classes of factory, was proper in a particular case.

I can imagine nothing more harmful to the interests of either factory owners or workmen than that the Minister's regulations should themselves prescribe—except in quite unusual circumstances which may sometimes arise, but exceptionally—what is the absolute standard to be observed in each particular factory. Under the previous Sections of the principal Act, occupiers are required, amongst other matters, to make provisions for "reasonable" temperature, "adequate" ventilation, "sufficient and suitable" lighting, "sufficient and suitable" sanitary conveniences, "adequate and suitable" washing facilities and "adequate and suitable" accommodation for clothing. In Section 7 of the principal Act, the Minister is entitled to make regulations determining what is "sufficient and suitable" for the purposes of that Section. That is the Section dealing with sanitary conveniences.

If a factory occupier complied with the regulations made by the Minister under that Section, he might well be, and I think that he would be, complying with the requirements of the Section, because the Minister is empowered by the principal Act as it stands to lay down an actual or absolute standard. But, in the rest of the Act what he is empowered to do is not to provide absolutely what is "sufficient," "reasonable," or "adequate" in the case of every factory, but to lay down a standard of what may be "adequate," "reasonable," or "sufficient" as a minimum standard to which the courts must have regard in each particular case. The object of Clause 8 of the new Bill is to put it beyond all possibility of doubt that unless the regulation in terms otherwise provides, what is laid down is not intended to be an absolute standard which must be complied with in every case, but a minimum or maximum standard, as the case may be.

It would be impossible to work this code of law unless one applied the principal Act as being an Act which laid down not absolute standards but general standards, either minimum or maximum—minimum or maximum, for instance, in regard to temperature, which must not be less than 60 degrees in the principal Act, or higher than a certain standard. If the position were otherwise and the standard laid down were an absolute standard which had to be complied with, and compliance with it which was a sufficient compliance with the provisions of the Act itself, these provisions enabling the Minister to lay down standards could never be used at all unless they were used to provide a standard which might be impossibly high in the circumstances of some factories or, on the other hand, unduly low in the circumstances of other factories.

Take, for example, the provision of proper washing facilities in factories. There the Minister can lay down the standard, and under Clause 8 it will become in general a minimum standard. For instance—I have no idea whether I am taking the right example—but he may say that there must be one wash basin for every 15 employees, or something of that kind. That may be a very suitable, proper and reasonable standard in the case, say, of a laundry in the country, but an entirely inadequate standard in the case of a lead pencil factory, or a black lead factory in Manchester. The court would have to say, "Here is a minimum standard of one basin to 15 workers. You must comply with that and we must look at the circumstances of the factory and the conditions under which the people work and the nature of the work, whether it is dirty work, or likely to cause dermatitis, and circumstances of that kind, and decide in relation to the circumstances, whether the provision made is 'adequate and suitable.'" That is left to the discretion of the court in the circumstances of each case.

12.15 p.m.

That is the purpose of Clause 8 and I hope the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames will think it is a reasonable purpose, to make quite clear what the Minister is doing when he lays down the standard and that in general it is a minimum standard. Occasionally, as in the example I gave, it will be the maximum, but generally it will be the minimum and, subject to it, it is for the court to say whether there has been compliance with the particular Section of the principal Act involved or not. I hope I have satisfied the hon. Member that that is right.

Is it the view of the Attorney-General that Clause 8 amounts to a substantial change in the law under the Act of 1937, or is it purely intended to continue in effect what had been believed to be the effect of that Act?

My view is that, with the possible exception of Section 7, it is intended to continue the intention of the principal Act. In Section 7 of the principal Act there is a departure in language which may or may not have been accidental. In the other Sections the Minister may prescribe a standard, but in Section 7 (2) the words are:

"may make regulations determining what is sufficient and suitable provision."

and it may well be said of that Sub-section that if there were compliance with the regulation there was compliance with the Section as a whole because the Subsection says that the regulation shall determine what is sufficient and suitable provision.

In all the other Sections the power is to lay down a standard and it certainly was intended that it should not be an absolute standard, but a minimum standard. The occupier complies with that and, subject to that, has to comply with the general provisions of the statute. The effect of Clause 8 would be to provide, in relation to both Section 7 and the other Sections of the principal Act, that beyond doubt the regulations at which one has to look may prescribe a minimum or maximum or, quite exceptionally, an absolute standard.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said, we put down the Amendment in an interrogatory way, because this matter had caused some difficulty in the minds of laymen like myself. As I read it the Minister might make standards so that conformity to the prescribed standard is obligatory and in compliance with the Act, or obligatory but not sufficiently in compliance with the Act. Some of my hon. Friends thought this seemed rather an odd state of affairs. In the case suggested by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Minister can say what ought to be done and that that would conform with the Act, or it would not conform. The position looks confused. I suspected there was an ulterior legal reason for putting it in a rather startling form what appears to be rather unfair to the occupier.

Would I be right in assuming that the Minister can issue two sorts of regulations, one which defines the obligation of the occupier with regard to the principal Act and the other by which he can issue a series of standards which are in the nature of guidance more than anything else? Would I be right in assuming that one is legal and the other is merely guidance? If that is so would it not be possible, when these regulations are issued, to make that quite clear and not to use the same word "standards" for the two different things. I think that is where confusion arises—the power to issue prescribed standards, one legal and the other not legal, one obligatory and the other merely guidance. The average factory occupier like myself is rather frightened of the law and gets muddled. This Amendment has not been moved in any hostile spirit. Its purpose is to try to get the question cleared up.

In framing the regulations we shall certainly do our best to make that point clear. The right hon. Gentleman's point was a valid one and we shall seek to make it quite clear in the regulations whether the standard laid down is to be absolute and legally binding in itself, and if corn-plied with it to be a sufficient compliance with the requirements of the Act, or whether it is to be a minimum standard We can do that perhaps by qualifying "standard" by stating whether it is a minimum, maximum or obligatory standard. Whatever standard it is, it will be a legal standard, but if it is a minimum standard it means that those concerned must not go below it but may need to go above it. We shall make clear in our regulations whether the standard laid down by a regulation is a minimum or maximum standard or an absolute standard, compliance with which will satisfy all legal requirements. This Clause makes it clear that we have power to do that. Having got that power, we shall exercise it to make it clear to occupiers what we are really doing.

I oppose the Amendment but for reasons which are not quite the same as those that were advanced by my right hon. and learned Friend. As you know, Major Milner, I had hoped to be able to move two new Clauses which stand on the Order Paper in my name, the first of which is to a substantial extent dependent upon the new terms of Clause 8 and the Amendments which we are now discussing. That is the one headed (Franklin v. The Gramophone Co.). I understand that you do not propose to call either of those two new Clauses.

The hon. Member is under a misapprehension. I propose to call the second new Clause which stands in his name—(Nicholas v. Austin). It seems to me that the first new Clause standing in the hon. Member's name, to which he has referred, might properly be dealt with on the Amendments which we are now discussing as it is connected with the proposal made in the third of those Amendments.

I am obliged to you, Major Milner, for clearing up that point. I can deal with the purpose of my first new Clause while dealing with the Amendments which are now being discussed. As I understand the argument of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), he is seeking to require the prescribing of a minimum standard which shall suffice for the fulfilment of the higher and more general standard which is enacted in the provisions of the Factories Act. The evil of that was indicated very recently in the Court of Appeal in the case of Franklin v. The Gramophone Company, Limited. Unfortunately I cannot quote to the Committee from the more traditional of the law reports, but it is reported in the All England Law Reports, 1948, Volume I, page 353. If I may shortly consider the facts and the law of that case to illustrate my argument in relation to this Amendment, I think that the Committee will be better seized of the difficulties involved in considering Clause 8.

In the Franklin case the Section of the Factories Act involved was not one of those with which we are directly concerned under Clause 8, that is, it was not one of the Sections set out in the Second Schedule. It was Section 47, which provides that where dust is given off in certain processes carried on in factories, and where such processes would be likely to be injurious to the workers concerned, steps should be taken to prevent those persons from suffering the consequences of inhalation of dust. Regulations were promulgated which dealt with the grinding of metals in factories where dust was given off. The case of Franklin decided that where an employer satisfied the provisions of those regulations, he was deemed, for practical purposes, to have satisfied the general provisions of Section 47 of the Act.

In the Franklin case the workman suffered from pneumoconiosis. It was established to the satisfaction of all the judges—the judge in the court of first instance, and the three learned Lord Justices in the Court of Appeal—that if it had not been for the regulations the workman would have established a breach of Section 47 of the Act, namely, that a process which had been carried on was carried on in a manner which was contrary to the intentions of Section 47, but that by virtue of the regulations, the Minister who had made those regulations had, wittingly or unwittingly, watered down the provisions of Section 47. So this workman, who had sustained pneumoconiosis as a result of his employment, and as a result of a direct contravention of Section 47 on the part of the employer, was unable to obtain damages under that Section by virtue of the watering down of its provisions under the Grinding of Metals (Miscellaneous Industries) Regulations.

We are asked to do precisely that by the Amendment which is now before the Committee. This Amendment would in effect give statutory authority to the Minister to water down the provisions of the Measure by promulgation in a regulation of standards which are less arduous for the employers. I must oppose that because it does not do away with the mischief which Lord Justice Scott in the Franklin versus The Gramophone Company case described as an important and far-reaching issue. On the contrary, it would be bound to aggravate and continue what I respectfully submit to be the misuse of the powers under the Factories Act.

Surely Clause 8 does not touch upon safety, but is confined to the matters contained in Schedule 2, which relate to comfort not safety?

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is absolutely right. But he might remember that I did say that the case of Franklin was decided in connection with a Section under the Factories Act which is not referred to in the Schedule at all. I was merely bringing the case to the attention of the Committee to illustrate the point that it is possible for the Minister to make regulations which water down the general effect of the provisions of the Factories Act.

On a point of Order. My hon. Friend referred to his proposed new Clause. I think, Major Milner, that you then indicated that you were not calling the first of the proposed new Clauses in the name of my hon. Friend, because it appeared to come within the Amendment to Clause 8. My hon. Friend's proposed new Clause does not come within Clause 8, because it deals with the safety regulations, whereas Clause 8 refers to matters in the Second Schedule which one may perhaps call "comfort regulations." It seems to me that the first proposed new Clause in the name of my hon. Friend is a very important one on this matter, and since it does not come within Clause 8 perhaps you would reconsider calling it.

It is desirable that the Debate having been begun should be concluded. The hon. Member should be allowed to conclude his speech.

I am obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. Were I not debarred by the Rules of Order I would add my voice to his in asking if, even at this late stage, it would be possible to have a discussion on what I would describe as the Franklin against the Gramophone Company doctrine, which does come within the provisions of the present Debate on Clause 8, but perhaps even to a larger extent lies outside it. I venture to submit, with great respect, that justice might possibly be done if we could have, even at this stage, a separate Debate on the proposed new Clause standing in my name. If I am out of Order—

Due to the change-over, I am not aware of what the hon. Member has been referring to.

I was dealing with a matter of some legal technicality. Perhaps I might be permitted to say that counsel sometimes thinks that a change of judge could assist his particular case, but I, of course, cannot do so here. May I respect fully point out that Major Milner informed the Committee that a proposed new Clause standing in my name will not be called? That Clause has as its object the discussion of the recent decision in the Franklin against the Gramophone Company case. We are now dealing with an Amendment relating to Clause 8. My submission is that while the point of the Franklin case is to some extent intermingled with the Amendment we are now considering, it is not wholly so and it may be perhaps of some convenience if we could have a separate discussion on this matter.

I assume that the hon. Member has now finished his speech. We might carry on with this discussion and, when we come to the new Clauses, the matter can then be considered.

I am obliged. I shall not proceed with the main argument which I should have adduced in connection with my proposed new Clause. We cannot in my submission accept this Amendment because it would be enforcing the Minister to proscribe a standard which would be lower than the general standard required under the Factories Act.

I do not propose to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Solley) in his somewhat complicated pilgrimage along the perimeter of the Rules of Order. It does not seem to me, with great respect to him, that his very ingenious argument—quite clearly devised, if I may say so, for a subsequent stage of our discussions—really helps the point at issue between my right hon. Friend and the right hon. and learned Gentleman.

The matter is one of real difficulty. We have to weigh against each other two alternative difficulties; the difficulty of exposing a manufacturer—who thinks he has complied fully with the law by complying with the Minister's regulations—to prosecution under the Act, against the very real difficulty, to which the Attorney-General has referred, in taking away from the courts the assessment of what is or is not a breach of the Act. I appreciate those difficulties and I think they can, in practice, be met largely on the lines indicated by the Attorney-General in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale). That is to say that great care should be taken in defining the regulations so as to make it completely clear to those who read those regulations whether or not compliance with them will be taken to be compliance with the Act.

I throw out the suggestion that it might be helpful to have in the regulations, where compliance does not mean compliance with the Act, some specific statement to that effect, some note calling attention to the fact that full compliance with the regulations will not necessarily be a defence in the case of a prosecution under the Act. I think the evil can, in practice, be met very substantially in this way. I am glad that the Attorney-General does appreciate the possibility of dealing with the matter in this way, and in those circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Before we proceed to consider whether Clause 8 stand part, I wish to ask the Attorney-General for this information. Under Subsection (4) of this Clause provision is made:

"for exemptions from any requirements of the principal Act … either unconditionally or subject to conditions, by an inspector …" etc.

What I would like to know is this. There are provisions of the Factories Act, for example, Section 14, which provides that:

"every dangerous part of any machinery … shall be securely fenced,"

about which there has been to some extent a difference in judicial opinion. So far as I understand it, it is now considered that even though a machine cannot possibly be safely fenced, that machine must not be used, if it cannot possibly be safely fenced, even though its non-user would make a particular manufacture impossible. Under Clause 8 (4), it might appear that the Minister would be able to make an exemption in any particular case which would, in effect, make it possible, for example, for an employer to use a machine which was not securely fenced and which would, therefore, be a user in contravention of Section 14 of the Act, merely because the employer says, it may be with complete justice, "It is impossible to devise a machine for this particular process which can be securely fenced." If we are asked to make so radical a change in the law as, for example, to enable employers to use dangerous machinery by virtue of this apparently innocuous Subsection (4), I think that we need an explanation from the Government. I, for one, could not possibly support it if my analysis of the meaning of the Subsection is a proper one.

This Subsection does not really involve any drastic alteration of the existing law. It is included in the Bill for the purpose of removing doubt. Under the existing law—I think it is under Section 60 of the principal Act—there already exists in the Minister power to modify or extend the general provisions of the principal Act in regard to matters affecting health or safety, the matters dealt with in Parts I and II of the principal Act. This Clause provides that these regulations which either modify or extend the provisions of the principal Act may contain provisions enabling an additional exemption to be granted by the factory inspector from the application of those regulations but not from the application of the Act itself.

Would my right hon. and learned Friend be good enough to answer my question specifically? I do not suggest that our Government would be prepared to do it, but does Subsection (4) in law enable a Minister to authorise the use of a particular machine which is unfenced and the use of which would, but for this authorisation, be a contravention of the Factories Act? I am asking for a legal opinion.

That is how I read the Subsection. Under Section 60 of the Act it might be possible for the Minister to make a regulation exempting particular classes of machinery and particular classes of factories from the provisions of certain of the safety sections. I do not know, without looking at the regulations, but that might have the effect which my hon. Friend apprehends. All that can be done under this Clause is to enable the factory inspector to exempt a particular factory owner from the operation of those regulations. If, therefore, the regulations have been ones which relieve the factory occupier from his obligations under the principal Act, I assume that an exemption from the regulations would reimpose upon him the obligation which had previously existed.

I wish to make a few brief observations on the employment of women and young persons with which this Clause is associated. Especially in the light of all the experience that we had during the war, it is time that we began to differentiate between women and young persons in our factory legislation. It is a matter which will need a great deal of study and thought on the part of all concerned and we could not possibly suggest that the Government should deal with it in this Bill. Next time a Factories Bill comes up for consideration, whatever Government is in office, I hope we shall consider that women are grown up and are not exactly equivalent to young persons of either sex in regard to how they can work, what they can work at, and what they can and what they cannot do in factories.

12.45 p.m.

As a small example, it has always seemed to me rather hard on women that if a factory is working voluntarily on a Bank Holiday, where, if they wish to work, the operatives will get double time and a day off as well—as they do in many properly regulated industries where work is carried on during a Bank Holiday—the women should not be allowed to join in that work except by getting express permission from the factory inspector. It seems that the privileges or the "perks," to put it colloquially, in the form of extra overtime and things of that sort are denied to women because the House, when they discussed the matter in 1937, thought that it would be bad, probably quite rightly, for young persons. I suggest that, when the time comes for further consideration, the code of the Factories Acts with regard to women should be a separate one from that with regard to young persons.

I should like to say a few words on the topic which the right hon. Gentleman has raised. I think that he has a case in suggesting that we should differentiate—

We cannot have a general discussion on any alteration of the Factory Acts. We must keep strictly to the matters contained in this Clause.

Yes, Mr. Beaumont, but we are dealing with Clause 13, and the matter is raised in Subsection (1) which refers to conditions regarding women and young persons. Surely, therefore, we have a right to say a few words on the matter. The right hon. Gentleman made a good point that there should be this differentiation between women and young persons which is not contained in this Subsection or in the principal Act. Another matter must be borne in mind. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Women have been associated with young persons in legal matters of this kind because women have never been considered worthy of adult status in the factory. If that were the case, they would have received pay equal to that of the men.

I cannot allow the hon. Member to continue with that argument.

If I am out of Order, it does not matter very much, because I have made a good point.

If the hon. Gentleman thinks so, the only thing for him to do is to resume his seat.

There is something in what the right hon. Gentleman said that is worthy of consideration. In fact, the matter is under consideration at present in international legislation. It is likely that, arising out of those discussions which have been started and which might come to a head in a year or so, this matter will become practical politics before we need to revise the Factories Acts.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This new Clause refers to the participation of shop stewards in the carrying out of the Factories Acts and of this Bill when it becomes law. During the Second Reading Debate, a number of us, while welcoming the Bill, felt that it did not really go far enough. For that reason, a number of new Clauses have been put on the Order Paper in an effort to improve the Bill. Even these new Clauses do not go as far as many of us would like. In some respects, a revolutionary change is likely to be called for and we are trying to make a few constructive additions to the Bill.

This Clause seeks to provide rights for shop stewards in the carrying out of the Factories Acts. Similar provisions are contained in the Coal Mines Act, 1911, and, therefore, this is nothing new so far as legislation is concerned. It proposes only to extend that legislation to factories. Subsection (1) is the key of the Clause. It provides for workers to be appointed by their workmates to inspect a factory, and to do so at least once a month, accompanied, if desired, by the employer and/or his representatives, and to inspect all parts of the factory. Therefore, when an accident occurs which is reported to the factory inspector, these persons appointed shall have the power to accompany him to the scene of the accident, and to make any inspection which they think necessary to ascertain the cause of the accident. Subsequently, they may be able to make some valuable suggestions for the prevention of further accidents. No such provision is contained in the principal Act.

The principal Act on no occasion refers to trade unions, to workers' representatives, to shop stewards or any other body of persons associated with working-class life, participating in the operation of the Act. Section 123 of the Act deals with the powers of the inspector when inspecting a factory. It gives him power to obtain information and access. We have moved a long way since 1937, when the Act was introduced. Today a great responsibility is placed on the shoulders of the workers, particularly the workers in industry. Ministers, including the Minister of Labour himself, naturally are calling on the workers to stand up to this responsibility. They are asked to reach new heights of production. I submit that they are restricted in carrying out those responsibilities both from the practical and, in a sense, the psychological point of view by the limited use of joint production committees, and the limited responsibility of the joint production committees even when they function. Here we are not dealing with the question of production as such, but with good welfare in a factory, or, as the Act terms it,

"good welfare, health and safety in a factory on production."

No one on either side of the Committee can be in doubt as to the value of that. These things directly concern the workers and are vital to them. There can be no doubt that the workers themselves desire such powers, and there can be, in my submission, no valid argument against granting them. Before I proceed further, I want to take up a point which the Minister introduced in his statement last week. In his reply on the Second Reading Debate, he said:

"The right of the workers to be consulted on welfare has been raised. That right is in existence and is in operation, because in a great number of factories and works throughout the country there are workers' committees—"

I am not quite sure what is meant by that—

"welfare committees and bodies of that kind"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd July, 1948, Vol. 452; c. 2513.]

I suggest that there are very few welfare committees in industry, but my knowledge may be restricted. On the other hand, I notice—and I have studied this fairly carefully—that the report of the Chief Inspector of Factories makes no reference to the number of welfare committees, although he makes reference to this matter. I submit that there are very few of these committees. Secondly, they have no rights in law, and if the workers on a welfare committee make any particular proposition they can take it no further if the other side do not accept it, or if there is no mutual understanding on the matter. Therefore, although that argument is valid so far as it goes, it cannot really affect the matter which I am submitting to the Committee.

Subsection (2) of the Clause urges that the employer shall provide facilities to these appointees—that is the name I give them—as outlined in Subsection (1) and produce documents in relation to the factory for their scrutiny. In the event of an accident, the appointees should have facilities for drawing up a report for the factory inspector, which he should accept and consider. Subsection (3) declares the occupier to be guilty of an offence in accordance with the terms of the principal Act if he fails to carry out these duties.

Subsection (4) discloses a new note, and provides for the factory inspector, when visiting a factory to inspect it, to consult with and be accompanied by the appointees. When a factory inspector visits a factory, he must see the employer or his representative. He cannot gain access to the factory unless someone in charge says, "You may come in," and that someone in charge is the representative of the employer, if not the employer himself. Section 123 (1, f), gives the factory inspector powers to examine persons. That really implies that these persons are reluctant to give information and therefore—rightly so—he has power to demand information from them. The proposition set out in this new Clause goes much wider in every sense than what is stated in Section 123. The whole setup in factories and the provisions of the law keep the factory inspector isolated from the workers' representatives.

What can happen—and I know this does happen—is this: the factory inspector can come along to a factory to see the records. There is no particular accident or matter relating to the factory that has been brought to his attention. He just wants to see the records. He can see the records in the office of the management. He will go there and look at them. He will exchange a few words with the management by way of courtesy, and leave the factory. [Interruption.] I am submitting that this does happen, and if any hon. Member wants to dispute it, he is entitled to get up and do so. These things can happen, and there is nothing in the law to prevent them from happening. A factory inspector can visit a factory, and the workers in the factory in general, and the shop stewards in particular, may not even know that he is present, and he is not referred to them in any way whatsoever.

I submit that under Subsection (4) of the Clause, there should be a responsibility on the factory inspector to consult with the appointees, who are elected by the factory workers. This Subsection would give the workers in industry a new responsibility and a new dignity and authority which we want to inculcate and develop. I submit that the Clause as a whole is very timely when the Government and Ministers are making so many calls on the workers for increased production and greater responsibility. It will be a better guarantee of the implementation of the Factories Act than exists at the moment. It will help the work of the factory inspectors, and it will, I think, be welcomed by them. It will take away the Radical reform mentality of the sponsors of that Act, and will contribute towards developing working-class responsibility. Finally, if accepted, it will do great credit to the Minister of Labour.

I hope that the Minister will give sympathetic consideration to this Clause. Since the principal Act was introduced in 1937 there has been a radical change, and the nation has now accepted that there should be a new place in industry for the worker. This request is a very reasonable one, and it is something which has already been accepted by enlightened employers in many fields of industry. The right hon. Gentleman will know that it has long been the privilege of miners to have their colleagues moving around the pits examining conditions and making reports thereon. It means that the miners are able to make reports which are very helpful in compensation cases. In the same way it is very important that the workers in the new factories which are springing up in the Development Areas should also have their representatives on these investigations.

If this Clause is accepted by the Minister it will give our people a new confidence. There is nothing so frustrating as to have an independent inspector visiting a factory without hearing the point of view of the workers. There is nothing worse than for the workers to feel that their point of view has not been properly put forward. I hope the Minister will appreciate the importance of the provision in the Clause that a full report shall be signed and put into the inspection book for later study by His Majesty's inspector of factories. It will mean that anything which a bad employer might like to hide will be brought to the notice of the inspector of factories. This Clause is asking for something which has been recognised for a long time as the right of workers in other fields of industry in this country.

I also wish to support to this Clause. I am not without experience of investigations into factory accidents. My experience has been mainly on the side of the workers, and I have found that when an accident happens there is usually a considerable amount of misunderstanding among employees as to the cause of the accident, and the possibilities of avoiding it. In these days, when it is most desirable that there should be a spirit of co-operation between the workers, on the one hand, and the Government and employers on the other, every possible cause for suspicion should be removed, and I suggest that this Clause goes a long way towards fulfilling that purpose. Furthermore, a new dignity would be conferred upon the representatives of the workers, and the Clause would, in my opinion, lead to a substantial diminution in the number of factory accidents.

It is, unfortunately, true that a little while ago a number of accidents occurred because women refused to wear the safety caps that were provided, or because workers engaged on piece-rate work disregarded the safety measures provided by the employers. These accidents would have been avoided, in my view, had the shop steward movement had sufficient statutory authority, such as is envisaged in this Clause, which would give them sufficient standing in relation to their fellow employees, and so enable safety caps and other safety measures to be used more fully. If we are to minimise the danger of accidents, increase confidence between the employees and the Labour Government, do something which adds to the dignity and importance of the workers and, looking ahead, take a step which will bring into operation machinery which can be used in the true Socialist State of the future, we should back this Clause.

I wish to make a speech in support of this Clause, because silence might be taken to indicate that one is not in full sympathy with the object behind it. I fully appreciate that we cannot produce at this time the sort of Amendment we should like, but I accept the purpose of this Clause, that the operatives in a factory should conduct investigations whenever occasion arises. As a trade union officer, the wording of this Clause seems to me to be a little unpractical The Clause states that:

"The workmen employed in a factory may appoint two or more of their number—"

I can visualise "Two or more" being interpreted as 50 or 60, which will mean we shall have a whole procession going round a factory. My union has for many years had shop stewards, which we call "shop presidents." This is woven into the fabric of the union, and these people are representatives of the union whose duties are limited. On the other hand, we have full-time trade union officers who, as a result of their years of experience, have become accepted as reliable people. It is my view that those who inspect the factories on behalf of the operatives should be the trade union officers. That is the difference between myself and the Clause, which asks for shop stewards.

If my hon. Friend will look at the first line of the new Clause, he will see that workmen employed in a factory may appoint two or more of their number. There is nothing in the Clause which refers to shop stewards. My hon. Friend's point, which is a good one in special cases, would be met by the workmen in the factory appointing their trade union nominee.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I am well aware of that. If shop stewards are substituted by trade union officers, it comes within the realm of practical politics. If the Minister, on the Report stage, will bring in a new Clause to give a legal right to representatives of workers to be entitled to inspect a factory, I am sure it would give satisfaction. At present, there is no such right. I remember, a lad of only 16, going round a shafting. To gather information with which to protect our rights, not under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, but in the ordinary courts, I visited the factory. It was difficult for us to get full information, because the factory was not one which had been within the province of the trade union movement for a sufficient length of time.

I would like to know how many trade union officers have received complaints about sanitation, about the filthy and revolting conditions of many places in our factories? The average firm is only too pleased to look into the matter, and quickly have it remedied, but there are others which do not do that, and nothing can be done because there is no right of entry. I agree that the factory inspector can be contacted, and that he will sometimes look for himself, but more often he refers the complaint to the health authority of the local council. Workers' representatives should be enabled to inspect, so that they can make suggestions in accordance with the experience of their co-workers.

There is also the question of accommodation for workers' clothing. Often in bad weather, workers' outer clothing is bundled together, with no opportunity for drying. When complaints are made about failure to provide sufficient drying facilities, representatives of the workers are prevented from inspecting the factory because there is no legal right. Although I know the Government do not desire to have more contentious legislation than is necessary passing through the House at this time, I hope the Minister will bring forward a new Clause on the Report stage to meet the principle raised this afternoon.

I want to say at once that I am not prepared to accept this Clause, about which there has been a good deal of muddled thinking and speaking. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Attewell) brought some practical experience to bear on this matter, but I think his mind was addressed more to the right of the workers' representatives to inspect, than joining in the grand procession around the factory. The hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) referred to a speech which I made on Second Reading, and said he did not know what I meant by "workers' committee." I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman, who is one of those who claim to be very close to the workers, would have heard of such a committee. He must have been working in the wrong street—

I made my points constructively and helpfully, as did other Members who have spoken on this matter. According to HANSARD, the Minister used the phrase "workers' committee." I have heard of a works committee, a joint works committee, and factory committee, a shop stewards committee and a joint consultative committee, but I have never heard of a workers' committee, and the only reason I raise the point is to get some elucidation. I would remind the Minister that there is no need for any unnecessary "wisecracking," because that can work both ways.

The hon. Member said he had not heard of a workers' committee, and I still say that I am surprised at that, because I have come into contact with such committees in many parts of the country. He also said there were not many welfare committees. Such committees were in being in many works long before joint production committees or other committees of that kind. The hon. Gentleman also said that the factory inspector was isolated from the workers. The workers' representatives can contact him; the trade union official can and does contact him. If there is any isolation it is not always the inspector's fault. There may be occasions when it is, but from my experience, before I came into this office, I always found the factory inspector most willing to listen to any points put to him, and ready to try to remedy any grievances. There is need for the factory inspector to keep in close contact with the representatives of the workers, but it must be a two-way traffic. The factory inspector should not be tied down to a regulation that, before he can go and make an inspection in a factory, he has to make it a condition that he must be accompanied by some persons appointed for that purpose.

In the main the need and periods for factory inspections vary. There are factories of such a character that it will be sufficient, owing to the absence of dangerous machinery, if they are visited once every year or every two years. There are others where congested machinery and changes in the plant mean that more frequent visits are necessary. If the workers consider that the factory inspector has not been there often enough and ought to go, it is only a question of asking him to go and look at a particular factory and the arrangements that have been made. Under this new Clause, persons are to be appointed to go with him. It says:

"The workmen employed in a factory may appoint two or more of their own number, together with not more than two other persons, not being consulting engineers, to inspect the factory, and the persons so appointed shall be accompanied, if the occupier of the factory thinks fit, by himself or one or more of his representatives, to inspect all parts of the factory."

Suppose it is limited to four persons, what is the use of the factory inspector making a round of inspection in a factory followed by a procession of that kind? A lot of time would be taken in listening to them and taking notice of the points to which they wish to draw his attention, and other points would be overlooked. It says in Subsection 4:

"The factory inspector, when visiting a factory for the purpose of inspecting it, shall consult with and be accompanied by the persons appointed in accordance with Subsection (1) of this Section."

Even if we were to accept that as practicable, it could not be put into operation for a considerable time, because it would require the appointment of a vast host of new factory inspectors. Some of my hon. Friends referred to the fact that this is operating in the coal-mining industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) said that this has been granted by enlightened employers, and referred to it in the mining industry. I think there should be a full stop between those two sentences.

There must be.

There is a difference in the mining industry because there the workers appoint the inspector. The man appointed is their inspector, and there is a great deal of difference between a periodic inspection of mines with specific things to look for on each occasion, and going round a factory inspecting lighting, sanitation, welfare, plant and machinery. We feel it is more in conformity with modern ideas that we should encourage our own people to build up joint consultation in the factories for these purposes. This joint consultation brings about more rapid improvements. Many of these factories have safety and welfare committees, and they are able to draw the attention of firms to matters that ought to be remedied, and they do not have to trouble the factory inspector at all. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Solley) said that this would give a new dignity to the workers and reduce accidents. I do not see how a new dignity will be given to the workers by appointing four of them to walk round with an inspector.

However, he did refer to another point which was of considerable value but not from the point of view that he suggested, and that was women's caps. I was associated during the war with the Industrial Welfare Society, and we knew that the failure of women to wear caps led to a number of accidents. The caps were not suddenly worn because the factory inspector came on the job, but as a result of a concerted campaign drawing attention to the necessity for them. If their fellow workers in the shed had said to these women, "You are a lot of sillies not wearing these caps," they would have put them on, and a lot of sad accidents would have been avoided. That would not have been accomplished by the factory inspector, accompanied by these representatives, making a formal procession round the factory and asking them to put on their caps. These things can be done better by co-operative methods.

Industries are working rapidly towards closer co-operation in matters of this kind. Certainly it would be a hindrance to the inspector if he were only allowed to walk round a factory accompanied by one or more appointed for that purpose. We are satisfied that the factory inspector must be able to visit works at any time. In many areas there is close contact between the inspector and the representatives of the organised workers. He addresses trade union and trades council meetings and explains what are their powers under the various Acts and how these powers operate. We shall secure the objective we are trying to reach by the method of co-operation, and we should do more harm than good by having rigid legislation of this kind. I would ask the Committee not to accept this new Clause.

I am sorry the Minister cannot accept the new Clause. He has not given adequate reasons for his objections to it. He has made a few points on which I hope to make some comments, but I do not think they are adequate. I should like him to do away with the idea of a grand procession during a factory inspection. I am sorry if the wording is not as perfect as it should be, and I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Attewell) that there is plenty of scope for improving the wording. The hon. Member agrees with the general purpose, and in due course, if the Minister would bring in an entirely new Clause serving the same purpose, he and others of us who support the idea would be satisfied. The Minister gave no indication of that.

This talk about a grand procession is only a play on certain expressions in the Clause, which could be worded to satisfy everybody. The point was made that the appointees would go round with the factory inspector, but Subsection (1) is quite specific. In the second part of Subsection (1), it is clearly laid down in line 5 that where an accident has occurred in a factory, of which notice is required, these appointees shall have access to the factory to make an inspection. That point was not dealt with by the Minister. It is the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Solley), who claims to have had experience of this sort of thing in the courts, for there have been cases where the trade unions said that they could not have access. Therefore, this is a problem which perhaps could be resolved in this way. At least it deserves attention.

The Minister said that in many cases these matters could be put right by the workers' representatives working together with the employers. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) indicated, by his occasional monosyllabic interjections, that invariably the workers' representatives get on harmoniously with the employer or his representative. If that is so, there is not much need for any of this legislation. For example, Section 123 would not be needed, because it states that the factory inspector has power to obtain information from the people in the factory from whom he requires the information. If all were working harmoniously together, the inspector would not need to have these powers.

1.30 p.m.

We are trying to make a provision which would ensure a right for factory workers' representatives similar to that which is now provided by decent employers. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne knows better than I do, in view of his profession, that not every worker has a decent employer, and the hon. Member must not judge others by his own standard. What we are trying to do is to apply the provision to those people who are not amenable to the considerations of good conduct and harmony between themselves and their workers. I hope the Minister will look at the matter again. I propose to look carefully at the wording of this Clause, because I believe that, if we put our heads together, we could devise some new terms which would perhaps help the Minister to accept the new Clause, and I hope he will be able to do so.

Will the hon. Gentleman also inquire into his objection to consulting engineers, who can be very useful people?

Yes, I will look into everything, and I hope that other hon. Members will do so, and that, by means of mass pressure, we shall be able to induce the Minister to accept the new Clause.

As I have been referred to, may I make one or two comments? I think the hon. Gentleman is making very heavy weather of this, and there is an implied doubt whether the factory inspector knows his job or not. The days have gone when managements used to send the younger employees up the yard to avoid their meeting the factory inspector, when information had been obtained from another mill in the district, that the inspector was in the neighbourhood. The factory inspector is a very able individual, and he does not go into the office and kow-tow to the management at all. He is a man who goes into the office knowing full well that he is competent to do the job that he is sent to do, and knowing that he can do what he likes in regard to the inquiries which he wants to make into the conditions in the factory.

Bearing in mind the purport of this request and what is behind it, and even if the factory inspector is all that my hon. Friend says he is, does the factory inspector pass any of his reports to the trade unions?

Would my hon. Friend at the same time say whether it is possible for a factory inspector to visit all his factories so often that the need for other people to keep their eyes wide open simply would not arise?

No, of course, it is not. I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman regarding one part of the suggestion he made—that with regard to the trade union representative having access to the factory after an accident has occurred, or in the case where there is a complaint launched by the operatives themselves that there may be dangerous machinery. I quite agree with that, but we are short of factory inspectors, and they cannot be provided in a short space of time. Whether it is the unattractiveness of the job or not, I do not know, but we have not as many as we would like to have. I think the Minister has given an adequate reply on the point. I agree that consultation on these matters should be by means of joint machinery between the management and the workers. On the point raised about the trade union representative having access after an accident, I quite agree, but not otherwise.

I hope the Minister will be able to think again about the principle involved in this new Clause. I can well appreciate that he might find the particular machinery suggested in this new Clause unsatisfactory, and there are many points of criticism that could be made about it. What I am concerned about is the principle involved in the Clause—that of consultation with the workers on questions of safety—and I would remind the Minister that one of my colleagues, the hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. Yates), raised the matter on Second Reading, when he was speaking on behalf of all the Labour Members from Birmingham. Representations have also been made to us by the Birmingham Trades Council, representing many of Birmingham's industries, and the trades unionists engaged in them have expressed their interest in the adoption of this principle. It seems to me quite clear that the principle could be adopted without encumbrance by any of the difficulties which the Minister set out, and it would be of advantage.

The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) said that factory inspectors know their job. I do not think anybody has questioned the competence of the inspectors, but the plain fact is that there are not sufficient of them to conduct periodic inspections at sufficiently frequent intervals. In the City of Birmingham, there are many factories which have never seen a factory inspector, and there are others which have only seen one on very rare occasions. Here is a suggestion for a provision for somebody to look after the safety precautions on behalf of the workers in the intervals between the visits of the inspector and until such time as the Minister can appoint the necessary number of inspectors. I hope the Minister will look at the matter again and reconsider the principle involved.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

In the principal Act, lengthy as it is, there is no provision at all for canteens and feeding arrangements, though wartime regulations were introduced which, I believe, still obtain, although I am not quite sure about that.

They do.

I am much obliged. These war-time regulations required canteen facilities to be provided in factories where there were more than 250 workers, and the regulations served a useful purpose in providing meals for many workers, particularly those going to new factories and those going to factories for the first time, as many women did. They provided facilities which those workers would not otherwise have had. We are trying in this new Clause to extend the war-time regulation, which is likely to fall into desuetude, by providing that the minimum shall be 50 workers in the factory, rather than 250.

The Clause states that in factories where more than 50 workers are employed the occupier shall provide a canteen with adequate accommodation and sufficient tables, chairs, crockery and cutlery. At the moment there are many factories with no canteens. It is difficult to know the exact figure. The chief inspector of factories in his report for 1946 says there are about 5,000 factories with mechanical power where there are canteens and about 6,000 other factories where there are canteens. That is a total of 11,000, but there are 280,000 factories. It is difficult to know whether the other 270,000 are all small workshops of five or 10 people where one could not reasonably expect separate canteen arrangements. One must reach the conclusion that there is a substantial number of large and medium sized factories with no canteen facilities.

The Clause deals with a sufficiency of tables, chairs, crockery and cutlery. I could draw the Minister's attention to factories where 2,000 workers in a factory have an hour for lunch and are herded into a canteen containing only 200 seats. By a piece of simple arithmetic, that shows that a worker may take only six minutes over his meal. That is impossible. I have seen canteens where there are ledges against the wall and there are no high seats, and the workers stand up and eat their hot meals off these ledges. Such conditions are not congenial or helpful to the digestion. The employer can claim to be carrying out the terms of the regulation because he is providing a canteen, but such facilities are not fit for human beings and do not help production.

There is also crockery. Hon. Members will remember that earlier in the week the Minister of Food announced that he was advised that cracks in cups and dishes and so on do not constitute a source of infection. Some of us on both sides of the House gave a gasp because we had different ideas. I am not expert but as one who drinks from a cup I can say I prefer to drink from a cup which is not cracked. I will not be convinced that cracked cups or dishes cannot retain the seeds of infection. As we all know, there are such cups even in our dining room, about which we can make complaints to the right quarter, but there is a far greater proportion of such cups, saucers and dishes in a factory canteen and in restaurants. Surely the Minister will give consideration to the terms of this Clause which lays down principles in this matter?

1.45 p.m.

The next point is about separate accommodation. I know the problems involved here and am sympathetic about them. The Minister knows that I do not want to propose anything which is impracticable. He will remember our discussion on the Second Reading about seating accommodation and he will remember how he and I hoped it would be possible to provide seating accommodation for all by October, 1950. For many a small firm employing 50 or 100 people, it would be very difficult indeed to arrange for entirely separate accommodation for eating. In such circumstances some ad hoc arrangements must be made. Perhaps the Minister will use some discretion in his regulations until such time as life in industry is more congenial than it is at present.

However, there will be many instances in which this provision will be possible, and the Minister must deal with this matter very firmly because we get much disease and illness because there is no separate accommodation for eating in factories. In the case I mentioned just now, where there is only limited separate accommodation, many of the workers go back to their benches and eat their meals there. The earlier Sections of the principal Act deal with cleanliness in factories, and it is demanded by law that the floors shall be cleaned, I believe, once a week. Yet people have to eat in a place where there is dust and fumes and all kinds of dirt arising out of their occupation because there is no adequate separate accommodation.

Another point stressed in the Clause is that the workers shall have the means of warming their food and boiling water. I could give many reasons for this, but we can all imagine circumstances. Many workers take sandwiches to work, but other workers, whose wives are perhaps more industrious, are provided with pies or patties, and although it may be all right in July—in July in a good summer and not the kind of summer we are having just now—to eat a cold patty, in December or January the worker would like to have it heated. The Clause suggests that there should be such facilities and that they should be granted gratis. There is also the point that there should be a supply of hot meals at cost price. I was not happy about that expression when it was formulated. I had in mind that the prices should be such as obtained at British restaurants in the vicinity.

That might have been rather difficult for the Minister to accept because it would have meant a new kind of inspection, so I worded the Clause as it is on the Order Paper. However, I assure the Minister that I am prepared to accept any adjustment of this phrase in order to ensure that the cost is a low one and is in relation to that obtaining in British restaurants. I would draw the attention of the Minister and the Committee to the Report of the Factory Inspector for 1946, where it is said that in the year 1945–46 prices had risen in certain respects. The Minister of Labour will remember the reference to tea having gone up a halfpenny, a cup and other things having risen by 1d. or 2d. I do not know what has occurred since 1946, but that is a tendency which ought to be stopped.

Subsection (2) asks that accommodation should be provided for workers who bring their own food so that they may eat it in reasonable comfort. The Minister will be aware of cases where the workers are not allowed to go into the canteens merely to buy a cup of tea and eat their own sandwiches because the canteen management insist that they should have the meal provided in the canteen. The other week the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples), who is an employer of labour, told me about a problem he had. He said that his firm was aiming to supply good cheap meals to the workers. I have no reason to doubt it. He then claimed that many of the building workers did not take advantage of these good cheap meals but preferred to bring sandwiches. That may be the result of some domestic problem, or it may be the case that they cannot even afford the 1s. or 1s. 3d. for that extra meal.

I mention it to show that there are many workers who, in spite of canteen facilities, bring their own food. Therefore, this Subsection asks that they should be granted facilities in the factory for sitting down in the canteen and eating their sandwiches. I would go further and say that they are entitled to have a plate upon which to put their sandwiches. This should be supplied for, ultimately, it means no real cost to the management.

The third Subsection proposes that there should be a canteen committee composed of equal numbers of workers' and employers' representatives to see to the good running of the canteen and the feeding arrangements. I am sure we all agree that the facilities provided by the Clause would be welcomed by the workers and all concerned, and I hope the Minister will give the matter his favourable consideration.

We have all been interested in the way in which this matter has been brought forward, and the valuable points that have been submitted. I am in this dilemma: that I agree with all that the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) has said ought to be done. I agree that the conditions were bad under which many of us in the old days had to feed, and others have to feed now, and the only reason why I shall ask him to withdraw his new Clause is because of the practical difficulties, which I will explain to him.

To take the last part of the Clause first, the canteen committee; the evidence gathered when I was working in another capacity, for the Trades Union Congress, was that where a works committee was running the canteen service, food and everything else were much better than when it was run by an outside contractor. So on that point I agree that, if we can get these canteen committees going, it is the right way. I agree also that there should be facilities for those who for some reason or other do not buy their meal in the canteen but want to sit down somewhere to eat the meal they have brought with them. It is the practical part of his proposal which causes me some difficulty. The Clause says:

"The occupier of any factory in which more than fifty persons are normally employed shall provide and maintain. …"

That means that anybody employing 50 persons must provide a canteen. That is a practical difficulty at the moment because it requires rooms to be set aside for that purpose with sufficient tables and seats. Here again, I agree that inadequate facilities are provided at the moment but it is very difficult for a firm employing 1,000 persons with only enough space for 250. I know the processions that go in and out. However, this system of providing meals in factories is growing rapidly.

We want a little more co-operation from our own people. I have visited quite a number of factories during the last two or three years and in some cases, to my surprise, less than 40 per cent. of the persons in some factories use the canteens. In others it is as high as 90 per cent. Why is it as low as 40 per cent.? Because many of them live so near the factory that they prefer to go home. It may also be that for some reason they cannot afford the charge, and so they bring a meal with them. I am completely with the hon. Member that industry must work towards providing these facilities, but there must be co-operation. If it is the law that the employer of 51 people must provide a canteen and most of them do not want to use it, he is up against a difficulty. I am glad that the hon. Member qualified his reference to the cost. Many industrial canteens today provide meals for their staff at prices considerably below cost. Therefore, a provision that they must charge "at cost" might increase the charge.

The hon. Member has made his point, he has the assurance that we are working to that end and are getting close co-operation. The provision for 250 is in operation, but many with fewer employees are doing it also. What is more, many of these firms have installed these canteens. It is not merely a benevolent action, it is a proposition which pays dividends in more ways than one. So, with the assurance that we shall when we can, bring in legislation that will make these things compulsory, or more easily attainable than they are now, I ask the hon. Member not to ask us to accept a proposal which is absolutely impracticable in the present circumstances.

Before the hon. Member withdraws his new Clause, if he intends to do so, I should like to make it plain that there is a large body of opinion in the House, quite apart from the party represented by the Mover of the Clause—

There is no party behind it.

Well, the two hon. Members associated with it represent 100 per cent. of the strength of that party, and I want to say that there is probably another 100 per cent. again of Members in the party for which I am speaking who are very concerned about this matter. I am concerned for quite a number of other reasons than those mentioned by the hon. Member. There is need for the healthy provision of refreshment in workshops and other places to make it possible for the mass of the workers to select healthy refreshment for themselves. It is a scandal, after the war and all that we committed ourselves to in the war, that men should be sitting down amidst the tools in the workshops with oil on their hands because there is no decent lavatory accommodation associated with the canteens. It is a scandal that in a garage close to this House, which I have used for many years, there are more than 50 men at work who, when they get their meals, do so in conditions reminiscent of the factories of 50 years ago.

I am quite certain, after listening to my right hon. Friend, that he is thoroughly in earnest about this. I know the difficulties in the way, but there ought to be a new drive by the Government as to the duty of employers of less than 50 men to provide washing accommodation, a room for meals with plates, cutlery and other necessities for a simple meal, where the people may meet and get their meals in civilised conditions. If that were done it would do much to bring into the factories a better spirit, leading to a desire for greater production. Therefore, I support the plea that has been made.

I should like to ask my right hon. Friend, whose reply I much appreciated, whether it will not be possible for some provision to be brought forward on the Report stage ensuring provision for canteens for the workers when new factories are being erected. Canteens must become the normal part of industrial life in this country, as natural as the sanitary arrangements. I believe that is one of the few good things that came out of our war experiences. New legislation now ought surely to take into account this new development which has taken place on the industrial front. I am well aware of the difficulties at present, for in my constituency are some very progressive employers—I will say nothing about the others—who wanted to attach a new canteen to a factory. The battle for steel for its establishment was terriffic. We are all aware of the very real difficulties, but perhaps by the Report stage the Government might put forward a date—1953, for instance, or any year the Minister cares to choose—when new industrial establishments and buildings shall make provision for canteens for their workers.

I wonder whether my right hon. Friend could say something about the possibility of the compulsory provision in certain cases of a packed meals service? In the case I have in mind—that of some workers in my constituency—I asked the Minister of Food for canteen facilities in a factory or the alternative of a packed meals service. Although the Minister was prepared to do his best to accede to the suggestion, the employers for their part did nothing. I understand the difficulties of my right hon. Friend, but I hope he can say that in future, in co-operation with the Minister of Food, he may be able in certain cases to make provision—which will cover part of the intention of the new Clause—for the compulsory provision not of a complete canteen service, although I hope that can be done in appropriate if not in all cases, but of a packed meals service.

I cannot allow the hon. Member to pursue that line of argument. He should confine his remarks within the limits of the new Clause.

I am sorry if I have unwittingly departed from the rules of procedure, but my right hon. Friend is now aware of the point I was making and I hope it will be possible for him to deal with it at some other time.

I think hon. Members on both sides of the Committee are equally enthusiastic for the provision, wherever possible, of adequate canteen facilities. My only objection to the new Clause, whose intention seems wholly admirable, is that it seeks to do something, in itself excellent, in the wrong way and at the wrong time. It is no use ignoring the fact that it simply is not possible to provide the physical accommodation in factories at present because in many cases licences cannot be obtained to do the work. Equally, the licences may be quite properly refused because materials are not available. We must not seek to write into an Act of Parliament in the year 1948 something which all of us know is in many cases quite impracticable.

Secondly, I doubt very much whether the inclusion of such a provision in the Factories Acts is the right way to tackle this problem. The whole purpose of Factory Act legislation is to lay down minimum standards below which industrial premises and processes may not fall; it does not seek to lay down what many—indeed, most—intelligent employers are prepared to do. For these reasons I very much doubt whether such a Clause as that now proposed is appropriate or suitable for inclusion in the Factories Acts.

Having said that, I think I am entitled to urge upon the Government the desirability of doing everything that is possible to facilitate the provision of proper canteen facilities. Much of that can be done administratively, by the granting of licences wherever possible. A good deal also can be done by the Treasury in taking a more intelligent view as to what is allowable for Income Tax purposes in work of this kind. In saying that the new Clause does not seek to do the job in the right way, I want at the same time to urge that it is a job which should be done and which every intelligent person realises is of the greatest importance both to industrial production and, what is even more important, to industrial welfare.

I will look into the point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas). I am not sure whether such a matter would come within the scope of the Clause dealing with the suitability of factory premises but I undertake to look at it. In reply to the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) I can assure him that we shall use every means open to us to encourage the development of such a service. As, however, it may entail a separate Act, being outside the scope of existing measures, this position also will have to be examined. I shall be very happy if I personally can be the means of bringing about an extension of this service and I shall be glad to give it my attention.

Local authorities have undertaken the provision of meals in British restaurants. This field affords great scope for co-operation with local authorities in the provision of canteen facilities of this kind.

That is another case, but I will explore it.

In view of the statement of the Minister and the impression made upon him from all sides of the Committee of our feeling in this matter, and the fact that I believe and hope that steps will be taken in this direction, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause, incidentally, would not be applicable unless one had been to a good canteen of the type which we have been discussing. The purpose of the Clause is to extend to all persons the provisions of Section 56 of the principal Act, which forbids any young person from lifting, carrying or moving any load so heavy that it is likely to cause him injury. There is no general provision in the Act protecting workers in general from excessive weight lifting; yet it is a well-known fact—confirmed by the Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories—that many industrial accidents, such as hernia and similar illnesses are the result of strain in weight lifting.

Subsection (2) gives the Minister power to make regulations, but these powers are seldom used. The Act was passed in 1937. Under Section 56—a very important Section—the Minister has for 11 years had power to introduce regulations relating to weight lifting for different industries and works. So far as I can ascertain, only three sets of regulations have been introduced to date—for the potteries, the woollen industries and flour mills. It is important for the Committee to know some of the features of these regulations. In the woollen industry, a man is permitted to lift a weight of 150 lbs.; that is to say, should he incur an accident in lifting a weight of 150 lbs., the employer or organiser of the factory incurs no liability within the terms of the Act, because he is entitled to ask the man to lift such a weight. A girl under 18 years of age may lift a weight of 50 lbs., and a boy under 16 may lift a similar weight.

We ought to be clear on these figures. A woman may lift a weight of 65 lbs. in a flour mill, but we know that sacks of flour are dead weights and are not easy to lift. Two women may jointly lift 140 lbs. An ordinary man could quite comfortably lift 150 lbs., but he could not go on hour after hour lifting such weights. The regulation does not limit the time during which that is to go on. If an employer asks a man to continue lifting those heavy weights and he refuses, the employer is entitled by law to dismiss him, and if the man goes to the labour exchange he can get no redress, as he would not be carrying out the job he was told to do. Many a lad of 15 can lift 50 lbs. but he cannot go on doing so for two hours in succession without incurring serious injury. Yet many a lad is likely to receive such orders. The rebels would say "No," and would end up in Parliament on the Labour Benches—I have read some of the biographies.

We ask that there shall be a review of weights to be lifted by adults and young people. The Minister should encourage the wider use of modern machinery, hoists and cranes. In discussing Clause 13, the right hon. Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale) said that it was time there was a differentiation between women and young persons. In this matter of weight lifting there is no differentiation and the weight lifting maxima are laid down to cover young persons and women, who may be married, or unmarried, or about to have a child. The Minister should give the matter careful scrutiny. It is a case where modern science and equipment should be used so that these people are not used as coolies. I think this matter calls for review, and therefore we have put down this new Clause under the very inviting title of "Weight lifting." The main purpose is to prevent unnecessary strain of workers and to stimulate the use of modern machinery and equipment to do this work.

I would draw attention to the fact that this Clause is very vague and that the speech of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) was against certain regulations, and not against the terms of the Act itself. Regulations are in existence in one or two industries, for instance in the woollen worsted textiles, and they are under consideration for jute. Always in those circumstances consideration is given not only to the weight but to the bulk. A bag containing half a hundredweight of wool is different from a bag containing half a hundredweight of cement, or coal, and all these circumstances are taken into consideration. Under the existing Act, we have all the power which is being asked for here. In Section 56 (2)

"The Secretary of State may make special regulations prescribing the maximum weights which may be lifted, carried or moved by persons employed in factories"—

persons, not young persons—

"and any such regulations may prescribe different weights in different circumstances and may relate either to persons generally or to any class of persons or to persons employed in any class or description of factory or in any process"

Will the Minister explain why the word "young" is used in Subsection (1) of Section 56?

They are two different Subsections. The new Clause says:

"A person shall not be employed to lift, carry or move any load so heavy as to be likely to cause injury to him."

While such a weight might be too heavy for one person, it may not be too heavy for another. The power in existing Acts covers all the points raised by the hon. Member.

My objection is twofold—first, to some of the regulations and details of them and, secondly, that although 11 years have passed since the Act was passed, regulations have only been introduced in three or four industries and regulations have not been introduced to back up Section 56.

I do not want to carry on a duologue with the hon. Member, but these things have been held up by the war. Regulations are made after consultation with employers and representatives of the workers in the industry concerned. The fact that only two regulations have been made does not mean that the Section is not effective, but it means that we have the power to make regulations and we will continue to make them. We are satisfied that we have more power and authority under existing legislation than we would have under the new Clause.

What would be the effect of removing the word "young"? The Minister has said, in dealing with adult persons, that one person is stronger than another. That is true, of course, but the same applies to persons under 18 years of age, and it is a rather superficial argument in connection with people doing heavy work. It stands to reason that a non-muscular person would not do a day's work in the docks or in some other cartage job in which he has to load sack after sack of heavy materials. Therefore, I think that the provision proposed in this new Clause could well be adopted. If a workman is on the job with a man who is able to lift up to one cwt. quite easily and that workman says, "I do not think I can do that," there is nothing unreasonable in the employer saying, "Then you are no good for that particular job." That is fair and nothing can be done about it. Because there is this differentiation in muscular power between one person and another, the law does not apply to persons other than young persons. I would be satisfied and prepared to withdraw the new Clause if the Minister would remove the word "young" from Section 56 (1).

Clause 56 (1) provides that

"a young person shall not be employed to lift, carry or move any loads so heavy as to be likely to cause injury to him."

That is an over-riding authority. Under the next Subsection, the Secretary of State may prescribe

"the maximum weights which may be lifted, carried or moved by persons …"

The point is that we can say "That is too heavy for these young persons and is likely to cause them injury." In the case of adults we can say that they can lift up to a certain weight. We feel that by leaving those powers as they are at present provided in the respective Subsections we are given more latitude to deal with the problems than would be the case if the words were altered as suggested by the hon. Member.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This is the last of my series of new Clauses. The purpose of this Clause is to ensure greater safety for the workers employed at heights. Section 26 (2) of the principal Act provides that if a worker is liable to fall 10 feet from the place where he is working, and if there is insecure foothold, means should be provided

"so far as is reasonably practicable … for ensuring his safety."

That may seem adequate and reasonable, but the Clause with which I am dealing goes further because it reduces the height from 10 feet to six feet or less—and this is important—if the fall would be specially dangerous, because it is not always a matter of height. If one is young and agile and one falls from a height of 10 feet on to something soft one does not necessarily hurt one's self, but if one falls five feet, perhaps on to a steel girder or even into some unpleasant liquid one can do more harm than might be sustained by a fall of 10 feet in other circumstances, The provision of the Act, as it stands, is rather arbitrary. I have put forward this provision in addition to the reduction to six feet.

The Clause further provides for an effective safety device:

"either to prevent the fall … or to afford protection from injury …

As I understand Section 26 (2) of the principal Act it is intended to protect workers employed erecting steel and others who are working on roofs. In the last few years there has been a great extension of the use of asbestos and there have been a large number of cases in which people walking on those asbestos roofs have fallen through. One cannot always tell that it is asbestos because it may be coloured to look like wood or some other substantial substance. It is also the case that many workers walk along gutters. This is common practice and is regarded as what is known as inevitable risk.

We want to clear up these matters, and that is the purpose of this Clause. Some of the safeguards we have in mind, and which the Minister's advisers could work out in better detail, include scaffolding, duckboards, duckladders, safety belts, safety rails and nets. I ask the Minister to accept this new Clause because its purpose is to strengthen Section 26 of the principal Act by bringing it up to date in the light of greater experience and to provide for a number of difficulties which experience since 1937 has shown to exist.

I am sorry that I cannot accept this new Clause, but I can go a little further this time than I have been able to do with the others which the hon. Member has brought forward. I am quite prepared to look at the possibility or necessity of reducing the figure of 10 feet. But the other provisions of the Clause are vague and would give rise to a good deal of difficulty. If we were to accept the words,

"in such circumstances as to render a fall of less than six feet specially dangerous, …"

I can see our lawyer friends having a lovely time arguing whether in view of the fact that the surface was hard the distance should have been less than six feet. The new Clause ignores our present regulations relating to secure foothold and if necessary secure hand-hold. If we adopted this new Clause it would reduce the height laid down in Section 26 (2) of the Act in the case of everybody, not only roof workers. We are bound to take care of roof workers and new building regulations under the Factories Act are either being drafted or—I am not sure of this—they have been drafted and are under consideration. I undertake to look at the point I have mentioned before the Report stage and see if we can make out a reasonable case for reducing the height of 10 feet.

I for one am very pleased at my right hon. Friend's statement that he will look into this matter. By a coincidence I was discussing this point yesterday with a solicitor who probably has one of the largest trade union practices in this country. I will not mention his name, as he has no desire for publicity, but he is probably as well known to my right hon. Friend as he is to most trade unionists in this country. He was saying that there are a large number of cases in which workmen fall from a height of less than 10 feet, possibly on to a concrete floor, sustaining serious injuries frequently resulting in death, yet the bringing of a case under the Factories Act is debarred by virtue of the provision that the fall must take place from a height of not less than 10 feet, assuming that there is no other breach of any other regulation and no negligence at common law. I would urge upon my right hon. Friend the importance of this matter from the point of view of workmen, and I hope that he will see his way clear to modify the provisions in the Factories Acts dealing with this point.

I would add a word with regard to falls in circumstances of exceptional danger. I do not know that, in this sort of provision, vagueness is not a virtue. Where people are working opposite vats of acid and things of that kind, or where they are working in positions of peculiar danger, this sort of provision ought to be made. It has become a very difficult matter indeed for the factory inspector, and for my right hon. Friend's Department to draw up the necessary regulations which, in general terms, will cover the exceptional case. It is very much less difficult for the industrial insurance agent. In this sort of case where an employer wishes to insure and cover his risk, the representative of the insurance company can decide if he is likely to be involved in litigation owing to a fall in these circumstances. It is the insurance company who would expect precautions to be taken, and therefore for the factory inspector we are bringing in a new ally who does not have to bind himself by any rigid rules. He has to consider the risk he will have to pay for. I hope, therefore, that my right hon. Friend will not reject this proposal simply because it is vague. Under this Act, particularly with regard to the provisions for secure fencing of dangerous machinery, every bit of which is intensely vague, the insurance company rules have supplemented the factory rules, and have done a very useful job indeed.

I do not wish to press the point. I was hoping that the Minister would respond to the request of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget). But if he will look at the matter, even from a wider point of view than he has indicated, I would ask leave to withdraw.

I will undertake to look at the whole question.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Clause is intended to remove a suggestion described by Lord Justice Scott in the case of Franklin against the Gramophone Company as of far-reaching and general importance. I can best indicate to the Committee the significance of this proposed new Clause if I refer shortly to the Franklin case in which a workman died from pneumoconiosis after inhaling dust caused by a metal grinding machine At first sight one would have thought that Section 47 of the Factories Act enabled the representatives of the deceased to obtain damages, because if one looks at that Section one finds, on paper, that in every factory in which processes are carried on which result in the giving off of dust of a character, likely to be injurious to the workers, precautions would have to be taken.

In the Franklin case the court was faced not merely with the provisions of Section 47, the rough purport of which I have indicated, but also with certain regulations under preceding Factories Acts called the Grinding of Metals (Miscellaneous Industrial) Regulations of 1935. It was discovered in effect that those regulations limited the general operation of Section 47. In point of fact, in the Franklin case, it limited the operation in this way, that where there was the sharpening of tools carried on in a factory, and the person who was injured was not a person who was wholly or mainly employed in the task of sharpening tools, he could not claim under Section 47, because, as in the Franklin case, he had been working close to the place where the sharpening of tools took place, and thereby sustained pneumoconiosis.

In my submission it is a grave matter when regulations are made by the Minister which, probably quite unwittingly, derogate from the general standard which is purported in such a Section as Section 47 of the Factories Act. I am certain that Parliament never intended that in regard to the fairly high standard set out in Section 47 regulations should come into operation which in particular instances would modify the operation of that and other Sections so as really to cause grave injustice. The purpose of this new Clause is to avoid in the future a case such as the Franklin Case where a workman having died, his representative could not proceed under the Factories Act because of the watering down of the provisions of that Act by regulations such as the Grinding of Metals Regulation.

I did not have a great deal of time at my disposal when I drafted the Clause, and it may well be, and probably will be the case, that on more mature consideration the Clause could be re-dratted in a manner which would be more agreeable to the traditions of the Parliamentary draftsmen. If my right hon. Friend would say that he will look into this matter, bearing in mind the importance of the observations of the Lord Justice in the Franklin Case, and the desirability of preventing any recurrence of such a possibility as actually occurred in that case, then, speaking for myself, and subject to what may yet be said in the Debate on this Clause, I shall be prepared to accept his undertaking.

I do not believe it was ever the intention of Parliament when they passed the Act of 1937, which was designed to give, and did give workmen the right to certain protection, that they should give at the same time to Ministers the unrestricted right to take away the protection which had been provided. Equally, I think that the decision in the Franklin case caused a big surprise. There had been a previous case. That case, speaking from memory, had great doubts thrown upon it by the House of Lords when they considered it subsequently. There was no suggestion that these regulations made by the Minister took away the protection which Parliament had furnished to the workmen, until we came to the Franklin decision. This does seem an extremely good opportunity to put back into this amending Act what I feel confident Parliament has always intended: that this general protection should be given to workmen; and that the Minister should have power to make regulations for the purpose of implementing that protection but not for the purpose of taking away from that protection. This new Clause, which seems to do the job adequately, makes clear what I believe was always intended.

I admit that when I first saw this new Clause, only a few days ago, I was not clear as to its purpose. However, having listened to what has been said, I must say I am a little disturbed if the position is that there resides in the Minister power to make a regulation which would detract from the value of the Act and the advantages given to individuals. Therefore, I should like an opportunity to consider the matter. I promise my hon. Friend that if he will withdraw his new Clause, I will consult with my colleagues the Law Officers and see whether anything can be done.

In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I think that I shall be meeting the wishes of those hon. Members who agree with me as to the import of this new Clause, when I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The object of this Clause, like the object of the one we have just considered, is to remove an injustice which became apparent as a result of a decision in the courts. It was the case of Nicholas v. Austin which brought to light the necessity for a new Clause of this sort. The case in question is reported in the 1946 Appeal Cases, on page 493. If I refer the Committee very shortly to the facts of that case, and its effects, I think I shall have done my best to urge upon them the importance of accepting this Clause. In the Nicholas case, a workman was operating a circular saw and was injured through a piece of wood flying out of the machine. The machine was fenced so as to comply with the requirements of the Woodworking Machinery Regulations and with Section 14 (1) of the Factories Act. Nevertheless, it was held that the employers were not in breach of any statutory obligation, since the obligation to fence imposed by Section 14 (1) was an obligation to guard against contact with any dangerous parts of the machinery and not, as on the facts of the Nicholas case, an obligation to guard against dangerous materials, for example, pieces of wood, which were ejected from the machine. Section 14 (1) of the 1937 Act provided that:

"Every dangerous part of any machinery … shall be securely fenced unless it is in such a position … as to be safe to every person employed. …"

It appears that, having regard to what was said in the Nicholas case—and we must accept it because it was the decision of the highest court of appellate jurisdiction in the land—Section 14 applies only to the fencing of a machine to make it safe from the point of view of the dangerous parts of the machine. It appears also that Section 14, or any regulation hitherto made under it, does not extend to danger as a result of the ejection from a machine of a piece of wood, as happened in the Nicholas case. Section 14 (3) of the Act states:

"The Secretary of State may, as respects any machine or any process for which a machine is used, make regulations requiring the fencing of materials or articles which are dangerous while in motion in the machine."

As far as I know, and certainly at the time of the Nicholas case, there were no such regulations. In my submission, even though the Secretary of State has power to make regulations, the position would be best met by a new Clause such as this. If my right hon. Friend would be prepared to give an undertaking that he will make regulations which would deal with this mischief—and he has power to do so under Section 14 (3)—I think I should be justified in withdrawing this Motion.

As the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Solley) has indicated, in the case of Nicholas v. Austin the court pointed out that the principal Act already provides power for the Minister to deal with this kind of danger by regulation. The reason the matter was originally dealt with in that way in the principal Act was that it is necessary to consider the extent and the nature of the danger which may result from the use of particular classes of machine and the practicability of certain kinds of safeguard against it. A general requirement of the kind contemplated in the new Clause, a requirement that every machine should be so guarded as to prevent the ejection of any article from the machine so as to cause danger, might make it impossible, in a considerable number of cases where there is a possible danger of something accidentally flying out, either to use the machine or, if the machine were used, to enforce the regulation. The Minister will certainly consider the practicability of making regulations to cover this kind of accident, so far as regulations can deal with the matter at all. I hope that in those circumstances the hon. Gentleman will not press the Motion. The new Clause would be quite impracticable to operate. I hope he will accept that the matter can be dealt with—as far as it can be dealt with—by regulation.

Can, my right hon. ant learned Friend give any indication when such a regulation will be made, or is it the case that it might be many years before we ultimately get a regulation?

We will look at the matter at once. I cannot indicate that it will be at all easy to deal with this subject. It gives rise to a great many complications in regard to the nature of the dangers, the extent of them and the method of guarding against them. They must vary almost infinitely with the different types of machine in use and the different kinds of processes being worked. How ever, we will look at the matter at once and, if we can deal with it, we will deal with it as quickly as may be.

In view of that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This new Clause seeks to put into effect a point which I raised during the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. The Clause is divided into two parts. The Committee will be aware that under Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the principal Act, there are provisions dealing with the fencing of dangerous machinery. Generally speaking, where there are workpeople engaged in a factory or workshop and there is any dangerous machine on which the workmen are engaged, or which is in close proximity to the workmen, there are provisions ensuring the fencing and the maintenance of that fencing. If anyone suffers an accident, he has the remedy of an action for damages for breach of a statutory duty.

Under Section 151 of the Act, there is a very wide definition of the term "factory." I draw attention first of all to this fact, because it is the governing factor with regard to the first part of this new Clause. In the case of Weston v London County Council a young boy was engaged on a dangerous machine and suffered a severe injury. It was sought to show that the provisions of the Factories Act ought to apply, but the court held that the premises in which the accident occurred were not a factory, and in those circumstances the boy was unable to recover damages. I respectfully suggest that where it is the intention of the legislators in cases of this kind that workpeople engaged on dangerous machines should be protected, all the more it ought to be to protect students or persons engaged on dangerous machines who are not employed in working upon them, but are perhaps instructing or receiving instruction in regard to the use of those machines.

I, therefore, suggest that the definition in Section 151 of the term "factory," which is very wide and in many cases covers premises which obviously are not factories in the real sense of the term, might be extended in such a way that any place or institution where there are persons engaged in instructing or in being instructed in the use of machinery ought to come within the definition "factory." In order to complete the picture, I have added an Amendment in regard to the use of the words: "employed or working" as used in Section 14 of the Act. In the discussion of these cases, some criticism was made of the fact that it may be said that the other provisions of the Factories Act ought to apply. I am not suggesting that here. I am merely saying that obviously dangerous machines ought to be protected in all these cases. Therefore, I respectfully submit that the definition of the term "factory" should be extended to cover a case of that kind.

The second part of the new Clause arises out of the case of Wood v. London County Council. In that case, someone suffered an injury in the kitchen of an institution. In the court of first instance, it was argued that the premises in question—a kitchen of a mental institution—did come within the term factory as defined in Section 151 of the Act, and Mr. Justice Tucker, as he then was, the trial judge, held that to be the law. That decision was reversed in the court of appeal, and there would appear to be some measure of doubt in that direction as to the true meaning of the word "factory." I suggest that here again it would obviously be a commonsense measure to say that where there is dangerous machinery of any kind in premises described in the second part of the new Clause, it would be wise and proper to see that the provisions in regard to the fencing of dangerous machines should be applied.

May I ask the Minister if he will be good enough to consider this as an important amendment in so far as the provisions of the Factories Act are concerned, because it deals with two exceptionally interesting and, in my view, exceptionally urgent matters. The hon. Member for Stoke Newington (Mr. Weitzman), in a very lucid speech, has already indicated that there have been two cases in respect of these particular matters. I would like to deal a little more specifically with the cases in question.

The first case—Weston v. London County Council—was the case of a technical institute which was conducted by a municipal or public authority, the London County Council, for the training and instruction of pupils in work which involved the use of dangerous machines, and it was held that it was not within the general definition of a factory under Section 151 of the Factories Act, 1937, nor included among the premises specified in that Section, nor did Subsection (9) have the effect of bringing such an institution within the definition of a factory. It was stated in that case that those who receive instruction in a technical institute are employed neither by those who own nor by those who teach in it and are not engaged in any process for or incidental to any of the purposes set out in Section 151 (1) whether by way of trade or purpose of gain or otherwise. During the course of that case, an extraordinary statement was made by the learned judge. He said:

"I am certainly not going to say that those engaged in teaching the use of these dangerous machines"—

I repeat dangerous—

"are bound to obey the code as laid down in the Factories Acts or under it with reference to guards as if I did so instruction might be seriously hampered, if not stopped altogether."

I submit that was a very serious statement to have been made because it declares quite categorically, in the first instance, that dangerous machines were being used and at the same time the implication is that the person who is working on those machines, because he happens to be either an instructor or a person who is learning, ought not to have similar protection to a workman who may even be a very skilled workman indeed. If there is need to protect the skilled workman, as there certainly is, by having a provision which gives him recourse to a statutory right of compensation in the event of the machinery not being guarded, surely a person who is learning and a person who is being instructed ought to be placed in a similar position. The whole intention of the Act is to provide that a workman has to do nothing further than to prove that the machinery was not properly protected, and so on, under the various Sections to which this amendment now refers when an accident causing him injury occurs, in order to have a statutory right of compensation.

As the matter stands at present, it would appear that a person being trained in a technical college or school or some similar institution is not so protected. If that is the case, I submit we ought, having the experience we have had under the Act since 1937, to include some new provision which would enable an injured student of that nature to be protected and to have the right of claiming damages or compensation in the event of the machine on which he was working not being properly protected. We do not ask for anything more than that in this new Clause. In the course of these cases it was suggested that if we were going to bring technical colleges and similar institutions within the provisions of the Factories Act, the whole of the other provisions would apply to them, such as hours of work, etc. We do not ask that the whole of the other terms of the Factories Acts should apply to cases of this description, but we say that in this type of case the person should be protected to the extent that the machine on which he is working shall be properly guarded and that the provisions of Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Factories Act as they stand at present should apply for the benefit of a student or person employed in an institution of that sort.

3.0 p.m.

The other case to which my hon. Friend referred is also a very interesting one, and I should like to bring it more closely to the attention of the Committee. In that case, a kitchenmaid was employed by the defendant, a public authority. She was mincing meat with an electrically-operated mincing machine in the kitchen of a hospital. The mincemeat was intended for consumption on the premises by the patients and/or the staff of the hospital. Her hand was caught in the machine and she was injured. It was held that the kitchen was not a factory within the provisions of Section 151 (1) of the Factories Act, nor within Subsection (9). Some of my hon. Friends will have read what the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert) has to say about "acts of God" when judges differ from each other. If I remember aright, the definition given by one of the authorities is:

"That an act of God is an extraordinary circumstance which cannot be foreseen and which cannot be guarded against."

One learned judge came to the definite conclusion that this was a factory within the meaning of the terms of the Factory Act.

But then the case went to the Court of Appeal and other learned judges came to the conclusion that he was wrong. How anyone can have two points of view as to what we pass in this House is beyond my comprehension, and certainly if such a thing happens it might be considered as an act of God within the definition I have given. But be that as it may, we have to put things into their true perspective in which we want them understood. Here is a learned judge who thought that Parliament, in its wisdom, came to the conclusion that a case of this nature should come within the provisions of the Act. We have to put the other three judges right if they are wrong or, if they are right, we have to put ourselves right by seeing that the Act is made clear in so far as our intentions in this respect are concerned. I ask my right hon. Friend to say it is not unreasonable that a person working under the conditions I have described should also receive the protection which is afforded to others who work under the provisions of the Act. This is a very important matter, because it affects a very large number of people, and I ask my right hon. Friend to say it is not unreasonable at this stage to amend the Act to provide for cases of this description.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Leicester (Mr. Janner) asked me to say whether I thought something was reasonable or not. I think it is a little unreasonable to extend the scope of the Act to cover something which is completely outside it. The main point I would make is what I said on Second Reading, that the question of strengthening the law as to the safety of persons employed in premises where the Factories Act or the Coal Mines Act do not apply has been referred to a committee. We should await their report before embarking on legislation. We do not want to infringe on what they are doing, or bring the factory regulations into a wider sphere. This Clause, if accepted, would extend the provision of the Act to technical schools and similar institutions. We should not know where we were if we were required to send factory inspectors to inspect small plants that might be working in public institutions. It would be wrong to apply Sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Act. They would not apply to safeguarding of prime movers or transmission machinery, but only to other dangerous parts of the machinery.

Who are the persons on whom the duties would be imposed? Who would be responsible? The machinery might be in a school or college. Who is responsible there? What authority have the managers or teachers over those engaged or employed in such a place, such as an employer has over his employees in a factory? They would not have the same power over a pupil in a technical school as an employer has to impose discipline on a workman who does not fall into line. There is also the question of what steps should be taken to enforce these provisions. I say nothing about the merits of the case. Apparently there is some grievance that should be remedied, but we feel it would be remedied best by bringing it within the scope of any legislation that is bound to emerge from the committee of inquiry which will look into the question of injuries and controls outside factories.

Can my right hon. Friend say when this committee was appointed, and when its report is expected?

Can we have an assurance that the point raised today will be referred to the committee, so that it can deal with it in a proper way?

The Minister referred to the difficulty about the "responsible person." Subsection (9) of Section 151 says:

"Any premises belonging to or in the occupation of … any municipal or other public authority shall not be deemed not to be a factory. …"

If he will re-examine that, he might find it possible to do something now, without waiting for the report of the committee.

I cannot give that undertaking. Not only is it a question of extending the scope of the regulations to cover places outside factories, but there are other blemishes in the proposed Clause. The committee is examining this question, and this matter will come up from its own point of view. In reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Plaistow (Mr. Elwyn Jones), I cannot say exactly when the committee was appointed, and I would not like to prophesy when its report will be received.

I was afraid that it might be one of the perennial committees, the appointment of which is never certain and the conclusion of which is never determined.

In view of the wide assurance given by my right hon. Friend, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

I should like to express appreciation of the Schedule. When legislation is amended it is of the greatest convenience that a Schedule in this form should be included and the Amendments should be put in heavy type. I thank the Minister and express the hope that his colleagues will follow his example.

I want to raise one point in regard to this Bill. Hon. Members who have followed these proceedings are only too well aware that the Bill as it now stands is quite incomprehensible without reference to the principal Act of 1937. The only part which is comprehensible taken by itself is the First Schedule to which I have referred. The principal Act of 1937 was in part a consolidating Act, and, therefore, the effect of putting this Bill upon the statute book is to make the law on this subject less easy to find than it was. I rise, therefore, to express the hope that before very long it may be possible to bring forward further consolidating legislation. I do not want to labour the point. It is somewhat unsatisfactory to have a Bill which is incomprehensible, and I hope the process of marrying this Bill to the principal Act will be undertaken before very long.

I have the very greatest sympathy for the view expressed by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). It is a criticism which might be applied to many sections of our statute law in this country. I must not allow myself to embark upon a general discussion of the position of our statute law, which is indeed most deplorable. We are having careful regard to the possibility of consolidation not only in this but in other branches of the law. This is a time when, unfortunately, the Parliamentary draftsmen have to bear very heavy burdens of work, but as occasion permits we shall seek to prepare Measures of consolidation. We are certainly impressed with the great importance of trying to do that, and to simplify our statute law and make it a little more comprehensible to the ordinary people of the country than it is at present.

I should not like this Bill to disappear without congratulating the Minister on the way he has carried it through and saying that the Bill, although small in itself, does something to uphold our reputation as being in the forefront in factory legislation and in the forefront especially in the quality and the skill of His Majesty's Inspectorate who carry out the instructions of this House. Therefore, I should like to say that this Bill and whatever comes out of it will have our full support.

Before the Bill finally leaves I should like to express appreciation to the Members of the House for their co-operation in this matter. Many valuable and useful points have been put forward which, while they could not be accepted as appropriate to this Bill, are matters worthy of consideration. Once again, one sees Parliament at its best when we join together to do something which is for the good of the community and when for the moment party political considerations are put aside.

Britain has not fully discharged her duty to the men who have been crippled and blinded and who have lost their health in two wars. We are now in a period of inflation, and I want to preface my remarks by observing that inflation hurts all, but particularly those who live on small fixed incomes, and they include all pensioners. It therefore behoves all of us, including those who speak for pensioners, not to make proposals which are so big that they aggravate inflation and thereby bring hardship upon all, including those for whom they speak. Nevertheless, the inflation spiral has left our disabled persons behind, and the time has come, for reasons which I hope to show, when their position must be considered.

May I examine a few figures very briefly? There are 700,000 men and women who have been disabled in the two world wars and who survive at this day. Approximately half of them came from each of those two wars. Of them, there are 50,000 who have been disabled in the highest degree, or who are said to be 100 per cent, pensioners. They receive a rather complex compensation from the State, including a basic pension, and, in a few cases, special allowances. I will deal with their case later. I want to start by dealing with the balance of 650,000 who are below the 100 per cent. mark—people with partial disablement—and their particular situation. The majority of them are in jobs, and, doubtless, the wages which they receive have, over the past 30 years or during the lesser times in which they have been employed, risen as inflation has proceeded, and many may think that, because these people are in jobs and have, on that account, enjoyed the rise in wages which has accompanied inflation, we have no further liability for them. I hope I may show that our liability nevertheless remains, and that it is due to be considered now.

Let us think about some of these disabled persons, who they are, where they are and how they fare. Their disability is with them during all their waking hours. It sometimes denies them their sleep, it affects their lives when at work or at play, or when they are resting in their homes. No one who has not lost a leg can know how much more difficult it is to stand in a queue, to get on a bus or to maintain the ordinary daily task of living, quite apart from the question of undertaking a job in a factory or an office. No one who has not lost a hand can know how much more difficult it is to dress one's self and shave one's self in the morning. No one who has not lost a hand can know how much more it costs one in one's ordinary daily life at home because one cannot put a new washer on the tap or put up a piece of wallpaper or undertake some other small job but must pay someone else to do it. No one who has not had a piece of shrapnel in his hip can appreciate how uncomfortable it is to sit in the cheapest seats at a cinema.

I mention these homely details because they are part of the daily life of the partially disabled people. No one who has not studied this matter realises fully that the bulk of these 650,000 men, though they are in jobs, are in worse jobs than they would have had had they not been partially disabled. It was to compensate them for all these difficulties in their daily life and for the handicap which would arise in their work, their play and the daily conduct of their affairs that we gave them war pensions. We may ask ourselves what the pension we gave them was for. It was not specifically to make up for the loss of a job. It was to give general compensation by way of a makeweight for the daily handicap which their disability placed upon them.

Statements have been made by Ministers of Pensions from the first statement made in the first annual report of the Minister of Pensions in 1917 all through the period since then, which confirm the view that this compensation was a makeweight. In the very first Royal Warrant itself will be found a paragraph, which is repeated in the last Royal Warrant in 1946, and which says that the assessment of compensation for a disabled person shall be made by comparison between a disabled and a normal person of the same sex without taking into account his earnings in the job which he was in before, or in any other job, and without taking into account any other extraneous circumstances—a simple comparison between the fit and the disabled person obtained by medical assessment. It is very important that we should remember that, lest we be misled into thinking that these 650,000 men are being properly dealt with by us on account of the fact that they are in jobs.

In 1919, after a Select Committee, Parliament came to arrangements as to the method and the amount of compensation which would be given to these people and to all our war disabled. It was then decided—I will take the private soldier for these considerations because I do not want to be too long or too complex—that the flat rate 100 per cent. pension for the private soldier, sailor or airman would be £2 a week. That figure remained until 1946 when it was raised to £2 5s. a week. Let me take, by way of example, the compensation of a man who lost his leg above the knee. He would have received £1 4s., that is, 60 per cent. of the £2 in 1919. Owing to the increase which was made in 1946 that person would now receive £1 7s. In addition, he would receive 60 per cent. of the wife's allowance, which is 6s. at present; so that would be his portion now. The increase in his compensation which has taken place over this period of 29 years is 12½ per cent.

Now let us see what has happened to money in the meantime, because it is fair to observe that the 24s. which we gave him in those days were different shillings from those which we use now—not only are they now made of cupro-nickel, but they do not buy as much. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in this House recently that, as between the year 1938 and the present year, the purchasing power of the £ taken over a wide range of ordinary consumption goods, had dropped by 60 per cent. We might say that a pound that was worth 20 real shillings in 1938 is worth 12 now. That shows how the consideration which we gave to these men at that time has altered even over the past few years.

These compensations or pensions are not directly related to the cost of living, nor are they directly related to wages. They are figures arrived at by empirical attention to all the circumstances, by common sense, and though they are not strictly related to wages or to the cost of living, they obviously bear some relation to it. Quite clearly one would not give a pension to a man without any regard whatever to the income which anybody else has; one would take into account what his brother might be receiving or what he might have been receiving. One would think about all those things, and one of the measures that one would use as to what was a reasonable amount to give him was what the money would buy, and what were the wages of his fellows around him in similar circumstances. To that extent, therefore, it is relevant to take wages into account.

I want to show, therefore, what has happened to wages during the period between 1919 and now. An agricultural labourer in 1919 received 36s. a week; today he receives 90s., an increase of 140 per cent. In 1922 the agricultural labourer received only 28s.; his wage has now risen to 90s., as I have said; in that case an increase of 220 per cent. A group of 14 different craftsmen in the engineering industry received an average wage at that time of 56s.; last year, which is the latest date for which I have a figure, they received 102s., a rise of 83 per cent. There is the measure by which the incomes of fellows whose situations are comparable to those of the ordinary private soldier, sailor or airmen, have been increased.

However, the makeweight which we give him, because of all the factors I have mentioned, has been increased by only 12½ per cent. That increase from 40s. to 45s., which I complain is not enough, took place in December, 1946. Since then there has been a further increase in wages and a further fall in the value and purchasing power of the £. The further increase in wages is substantial. In January, 1946, the average wage of a man in this country was 114s.; today it is 128s.—a further rise of 12½ per cent. in the wages of an ordinary person since the last—and only—rise in the basic rate of pension.

The makeweight, if it is to make weight, should rise pro rata with the fall in the purchasing power of money and the consequent rise in wages; otherwise we are not giving to these people the degree of compensation which we thought fit to give in 1919. In the intervening years not merely costs, but standards, have risen and we ought to take them into account also, so that a pro rata rise in the basic rate—the least that is just—can be made. To do less than adjust the compensation to the altered circumstances of today is to treat this group of our fellow citizens ungenerously and to leave them at a disadvantage owing to their services, which we are no longer willing to compensate at the rate which we thought was just, so long ago. If I have been able to show a case for compensating these 650,000 people who are in work, I do not think pleading is needed for the lesser number of partial pensioners who are not in work. Clearly, their incomes are infinitely less and the compensation is due to them on grounds not merely of equity but of genuine hardship.

There remains the group of disabled ex-Service men and women whom I excluded at the beginning of my statement, namely, the 50,000 who are disabled in the highest degree. They receive a flat-rate pension of £2 5s. a week. Many of them who are unable to work receive £1 unemployability allowance, and if such a person was married he would receive 10s. for his wife. That 10s. was the figure given for the wife in 1919. She, therefore, has not risen by 12 per cent. There has been no rise at all. Such a man with one child would receive 7s. 6d. for that child. The income of such a man, wife and child, therefore, would be £4 8s. 6d., which is £2 less than the average wage paid to a man today.

These groups of whom I am speaking may be in receipt of an attendant allowance, which may vary from 10s. a week to the common figure of £1 or, in very exceptional cases where the man may have lost both hands and both his eyes, even to £2 a week. Adding the £4 8s. 6d. to the £2 attendant allowance in that very severe case, it would be possible to attain the high figure of £6 8s. 6d., when it might be thought that we were not treating our disabled men so badly; but only 250 out of 650,000 are in that category, and only 4,000 receive the attendant allowance. Therefore the special allowances to which I have made full reference do not alter the case that the overwhelming majority of our partially disabled pensioners are not getting enough to compensate them, and the majority of our severely disabled pensioners are living on money which is so much below the average rate today as to be ungenerous, and even mean. If a man who is bedridden, paralysed, or blinded were to give himself the luxury of 10 cigarettes a day and one pint of beer a day, providing nothing for his wife, it would cost him £1 1s. 6d. a week out of his pension of £4 8s. 6d. and, if he also has to find rent, there would not be very much for comfort.

I realise that the group of ex-Service men and women to whom I have made reference are not the only disabled persons. In our industrial life there are serious accidents from time to time, and there are parallel cases in industry. They are a lesser number and the House need not be worried about the extent of the accident rate in industry. But there are a number, and we have been talking of them in the earlier Debate today. My feeling is that they, who have had to put up with the same compensation terms as those to which I have made reference, need the same consideration as I am asking for war victims. This becomes a matter of supreme interest to the whole Trade Union movement and I appeal to the Trade Union movement to throw in their weight with us in the ex-Service movement, so that together we may bring the rates for all who are disabled by the accidents of war or the accidents of industry up to rates of which we could be proud.

At Whitley Bay this week the miners held their trade union meeting and there it was disclosed that they have introduced a scheme for further contributions and further benefits for those of their number who are disabled in industry. They have done so under the Industrial Insurance Act. This House contemplated that the allowances which the Government were giving to disabled persons were not adequate, and for that reason a provision went into the Bill, which was passed only a year or two ago, making it possible for the rates for those in industry to be raised. The miners have come to an arrangement with the Coal Board under this Act whereby, subject to the formal approval of the Minister, they are to institute a scheme for augmenting disability pensions in that industry. The Coal Board are to pay three-quarters of the contributions and the miners one quarter, and the result is that the miners are to get £1 a week extra when disabled in the highest degree.

Today we have a situation in which a miner who loses both his legs, or is blinded, will get £1 a week more disability pension than is paid to the soldier, sailor or airman who suffered the same disability in defending our country—perhaps I might even say in defending our mines and defending the organisations which are part of the life of this country, such as the Miners' Union itself. That is an intolerable state of affairs. I am sure the House and the country will say, "Good luck to the miners. Lucky for them that there is a Section of an Act passed by the Labour Government under which they can so wisely improve their position." But may I point out that since the coalmines are losing money, three-quarters of the cost of the improvement of their position comes out of the pockets of the taxpayers? Why should the taxpayers virtually give £1 a week more to a miner who loses his legs or his eyes than to a soldier, sailor or airman who suffers the same disability? I cannot believe that the Government can leave that position as it is. I congratulate the miners, particularly the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) who made such a great contribution towards the miners' scheme. Let them, with their powerful influence throughout the country, with their powerful representation in this House, now come and help us in the ex-Service world to secure similar conditions for our people.

What I am trying humbly to put forward today are not my views alone: they are the views of the British Legion, which has nearly 1,500,000 members in this country: they are also the views of the Royal Air Force Association, which has a very large membership; and I am also speaking for the disabled soldiers' organisations, those smaller bodies which care for particular sections of the blinded and maimed. It is our intention to initiate a campaign in this House, in the other House, in the Press and in the constituencies to call attention to a case which I believe stands on its own merits, but which is so strongly fortified by the action which has been taken by the National Union of Mineworkers this very week.

May I ask that all who served in the two wars, whether they be in organisations or whether they be private individuals, and their wives and children, and all citizens who sympathise with them, join together and form our own unofficial union of public opinion which will have no less power and influence upon the mind of this House and upon the mind of the Government than has the National Union of Mineworkers. May I not say, on behalf of this House, to the soldiers, sailors and airmen who went out to fight our battles with such valiant heart, "We will do our duty. You did yours"?—

"All you had hoped for, all you had, you gave

To save Mankind—yourself you scorned to save."

I listened with the respect which all my colleagues in all parts of the House always give to the observations made by the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), observations which he makes with such power and sincerity when he is dealing with that subject which he has made his own. Let me say how proud I was to join with him as he went step by step through his argument until, if I may say so, he arrived at Whitley Bay. It was when he arrived at Whitley Bay that he got into difficulties, and let me make it perfectly clear that the difficulties in which he found himself would have been present had he been considering, for example, the wages paid to a worker in uniform, because that is how we on this side of the House regard a soldier.

We say that if we consider the wages of a worker in uniform then we will address ourselves to questions of national finance and give that worker in uniform the best we possibly can. Similarly if I were asked if I agreed with the amount of money which is being received by the injured ex-Service man I would say "certainly not." If I were asked, further, would I agree to pay an increase in my Income Tax to give him more, I would say "most certainly." It is when the hon. and gallant Member gets to Whitley Bay, as I put it, and gets to the point where all this is mixed up with collective bargaining that I must join issue with him, if I may do so without sounding a dissentient note. May I put it in this way? We are already giving tremendous support to the movement in which he so passionately and rightly believes, and we have made a direct contribution.

In the course of his observations the hon. and gallant Member referred to the increase to £2 5s. 0d. It will be particularly present in the minds of hon. Members that that increase came as a consequence of representations made and pressed and argued in all parts of the country by the Trade Union movement, and particularly by the National Union of Mineworkers with whom I have been so closely associated. Therefore, it must not be thought that there is a difference between us in our intentions as to what the ex-Service man should get. I merely want to say that we are doing so much and we should be given full credit for it. We are making the first efforts and the first claim, and succeeding, and we should receive full support, because undoubtedly the people who are served so well by the hon. and gallant Member will receive, and have received in that respect, the benefits of our efforts. They have received them in many other respects.

When we consider the scheme which has just been agreed between the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board we are considering something which is a matter of direct relationship between two sides in the industry. The argument of the hon. and gallant Member must be treated as being fallacious because he is obviously not making a comparison between the basic rates payable to the injured Service man and the basic rate payable to the injured workman. He is making a comparison of both joint schemes, one payable in respect of the soldier and the other in respect of the worker in industry. Then later in his argument he brought in the supplementary scheme, which is a very different thing.

If any benefit comes, as it undoubtedly will, to the people whom he serves, as a consequence of some advantage which we receive in the mining industry, it will come as a consequence of Section 83 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946. That Section would not have been on the Statute Book but for the efforts of the National Union of Mineworkers. There again tribute should be paid to the work we have already done in relation to this important task.

I come now to the most controversial part of the observations made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He tried to link up the money being lost in the coal industry with our supplementary scheme. I oppose in the most emphatic terms any suggestion of that kind. It would be very faulty indeed to infer anything at all from this suggestion of loss on the one hand and the supplementary scheme on the other. The National Coal Board, which is doing such a magnificent job, has inherited certain deficiencies in the shape of economically unsound pits which it is running for the benefit of the nation. It is bound to lose money where it is carrying on work in those pits.

Side by side with that is the fact that the industry is making money, and not losing it, on the change-over from the liability in respect of workmens' compensation to liability in respect of industrial injuries under the new scheme. The coal industry will not have to pay anything like as much in their accounts in respect of industrial injuries in post 5th July cases as they had to pay in respect of workmen's compensation payments. The saving to the coal industry will amount to millions of pounds per annum. That being so, it would be perfectly fair for the National Union of Mineworkers to say that they want that fund which has been saved set aside for the purpose of providing benefits for their men under Section 83 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act. If we did that, then we would have incomparably greater benefits under our supplementary scheme than those we are now receiving. Let me pay a tribute to the restraint of the miner, because he does not ask for all the money saved. He asks only for part of the amount which has been saved to the industry out of this very business of providing compensation for injured people.

He has gone further. The miner has agreed, through his delegates, by a unanimous decision, to go back on the idea of a non-contributory scheme which had been the whole basis of the negotiations for years. He will be contributing under this scheme as much as is contributed under the general scheme. The contribution for a worker under the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act is 4d. a week. That is precisely the additional sum which will be paid by the miner under the supplementary scheme. In other words, he will pay 4d. a week, or double the rate of contribution that the non-miner will pay, and he will provide £500,000 a year towards the benefits which he will receive. I hope I have made it clear that this is a matter of negotiation between workers and employers in the industry. It is in no way affected—

It does not seem to me that what the hon. Gentleman has said has any bearing whatever on the matter. I did not criticise the miners: I said good luck to them. Would he answer my question? Is it a fact that the taxpayers will pay three-quarters of the money in order to give the miner an extra £1 which the other man will not get? I do not want it to be thought that I am criticising. I say good luck to the miner, and I ask him to come and help us.

Surely the answer is that I have already indicated two important respects in which we have helped them. That is the first part of my answer. The second part of my answer is that the proportions are wrong. It is not a question of three-quarters. It is a question of 4d. a ton as against 4d. per individual. It would be absolutely absurd to take those figures and not to take into account the saving to the coal mining industry in the change-over. It would be utterly wrong to talk about a loss, and the taxpayers paying the money, just because it so happened that in this particular period there may be a loss. That, I think, is a complete answer to the hon. Member. I was very happily supporting the hon. Gentleman until he used these words. Although he did say good luck to the miner, he also compared the position of the miner, after he had had the full benefits of the supplementary scheme, with the position of the injured soldier, and he said that this was an intolerable state of affairs If that is not criticism of our supplementary scheme, I would like to know what it is.

Is it not a fact that when my hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) used the word "intolerable," he meant that it was quite wrong that, when the needs of the disabled men were the same whether disabled in war or in industry, one should get one amount of money and the other should receive a different amount? Does he not accept that? As the State is the employer in both instances, to use his own words, should not the State see that those injured, either in industry or in war, should receive exactly the same compensation?

My answer is that the question of need is only one of the many questions which must be considered. The question of loss must be considered. The differentiation of rate resulting from the differentiation of risk as between one industry and another must be considered. The history of workmen's compensation payments has to be considered. My answer to the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) is that precisely the same question could be asked in relation to wages. Wages are paid in respect of need and other factors. Certainly by comparison with the non-soldier, the soldier is not getting as much in income when doing his job as many men working in industry. That argument may be overwhelming, but it is an argument which will ultimately, I claim, come from this side of the House and not from the other side. If we are considering these schemes and making comparisons, I think we should go further and compare matters other than the sections of one scheme with another. Although the point in relation to need is important, so is the point in relation to financial loss.

There are several persons who under the Royal Warrant will be getting sums far above those quoted by the hon. Member for Lonsdale because of differences of rank. So far as the industrial injuries scheme is concerned, that point does not arise. There are other factors which arise by reason of there being or not being a contribution by the persons concerned which make it perfectly clear that the comparison between the two is utterly wrong because it is a comparison of dissimilars. They are entirely dissimilar things, and I think that to attempt a comparison will injure the case put forward by the hon. Member for Lonsdale, and his views will be frustrated by going the wrong way about it. If we consider not the basis of comparison but what we are prepared as a nation to do for the injured soldier, then I say that he deserves the very best that we can do, but once let this question be intermingled with the question of collective bargaining, and I shall oppose that link-up as strongly, sincerely and passionately as the hon. Member for Lonsdale put his case.

I think that the House—such as is left of it—was very interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams), but I submit that a great deal of it was irrelevant to the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). I would reinforce what my hon. Friend said, and emphasise that during the whole of his remarks he did not make one single attack on the miners. His speech was one of good will and gratitude that the miners had succeeded in gaining so much. All that he asked was that the miners, having been successful, should now come to the help of disabled ex-Service men to enable them to get the same benefit that they themselves had got.

I would like to express the sense almost of resentment which I feel every time I listen to a Debate on war pensions. There is something oddly un-British in our attitude towards our war veterans, especially the war disabled. I think that we are naturally a kindly and humane people and also a fair-minded people; and yet today we are spending £80 million to £100 million a year in placing Germany on her feet and caring for her people and, incidentally, looking after her war veterans, while at the same time we cannot spend as many thousands on our own men.

That seems to me to be so inconsistent. I have nothing against the German war veterans, the German wounded who are disabled or blind, but I feel it is strangely illogical that we should be spending this vast sum of money each year in maintaining the German war wounded while leaving our own under such unfair conditions.

I have tried for some time to find out the reason, to find out some justification for this attitude, and I have come to the conclusion that there is one thing which has animated not only this Government but other Governments, and that is that they have based the war pensions on the amount of discomfort and inconvenience suffered by the war pensioner, instead of basing it on the power to earn which has been denied to him as a result of his disability. That is fundamentally wrong. Pensions should be based on the capacity to earn, on the amount the man previously earned, or on the amount he might have earned if he had not been disabled. That is where the whole system of war pensions has gone wrong for the last 25 years, and it is up to this Government, or some Government soon, to put it right.

Whether we compare war pensions with the cost of living, with civilian wages, or even with the pensions paid to miners, the contrast is always against the man who fought and suffered for his country when it was in need. That is surely all wrong. As my hon. Friend said—and I have looked into these figures in connection with cases in my own constituency—in the case of a 100 per cent. war disability pension, which is for the man who has lost two hands, is blind and so on, assuming he has a wife and child, the man gets £4 10s. from the State at the outside—in fact it is a little less.

The hon. and gallant Member is omitting any of the special allowances that we pay for attendants.

I am taking the basic figure. My hon. Friend gave the House the details, which I do not want to go over again.

In nine cases out of ten there would not be an attendant allowance.

I wish to make it clear that the figure quoted by the hon. and gallant Member is not the maximum figure.

This is the maximum figure for nine cases out of ten. We have to take the general argument in this matter. We cannot go into every detail of every case throughout the country. Of course, there are people getting far more, but I am referring to the large percentage of men on behalf of whom my hon. Friend was speaking. I wish to point out that the amount we are paying to a man who has to maintain himself, his wife and child, who is possibly bedridden, in great pain and unable to earn anything, is less than we pay to a young girl who is a first-class shorthand-typist.

indicated dissent.

It is no good the Parliamentary Secretary saying that that is not the case, because we have all had personal experience of this in our constituencies. We know what we pay to a shorthand-typist in commerce. We know that we pay £6 for a first-class person, but where can we find a 'disabled man, with a family to support, getting £6?

rose—

I know that it may be the case in one or two isolated instances, but I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not hide himself behind one or two isolated cases, because the country and this House will not stand for it. My hon. Friend the Member for Lonsdale said that a pensioner wants a few comforts in the shape of a pint of beer or a few cigarettes daily, the cost of which eats into his very low pension.

Since the hon. and gallant Gentleman is attempting to import so much irrelevant prejudice into the Debate, would he agree that it is also a great deal less than is paid to company directors?

I do not follow that argument at all—

Think it out. It will dawn gradually.

No doubt it was a good point to make.

It was a rotten point to make.

Thank you. Like most Members of the House who are old soldiers, and as one who has the privilege of serving with what I regard as the grandest regiment in the British Army, I feel that so long as this stigma remains on our conscience and we permit the present scale of war pensions to continue, we cannot be a happy people.

In the few minutes at my disposal I would like to associate myself entirely with the observations of the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser). I am sure we shall agree that, in a remarkable and restrained speech, he presented a true picture to the House. An unfortunate atmosphere, however, has been created since my hon. Friend spoke. We are not here to consider the relative merits or demerits of the amounts paid to those injured in industry and those injured in the national service in the Armed Forces. To my mind the only relevance of the action of the miners, with whom the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) is associated, is this: the fact that the Miners' Union and the Coal Board realise the inadequacy of the payments made to miners in respect of industrial injuries should quicken the conscience of this House and the country about the inadequacy of pensions paid in respect of war injuries.

The trade unions have been trying for years to get the rates increased.

Then let them continue. Is this the time to stop?

I hope Members opposite will not get cross; we only want to thank them.

The hon. Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) seems to be very peeved about any suggestion that present rates are not adequate.

I object very much to that personal attack. I do not object to any such thing. I merely wish to point out that the trade unions have been trying for years to get higher pensions.

I thought the hon. Gentleman rose to answer a remark made by the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Bowen), but it seems that he wants to make a speech.

I hope that the efforts of the trade unions, coupled with those outside, will be continued. Any suggestion which helps to create an atmosphere of friction or competition in this matter is out of place—

Who started it?

It is not a question of who started it, but of considering the matter on its merits. If we examine the matter dispassionately no one could possibly justify our present pension rates. Clearly, the time is long overdue for a basic increase in all these rates. One hon. Member talked about the position of miners arising out of collective bargaining. I am not suggesting that war pensions are a matter for collective bargaining, but a matter of putting right something that is wrong and giving people who certainly deserve it a square deal. We are at present giving them a raw deal.

I am not going to go into the figures. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Lonsdale has given illustrative examples of the most unsatisfactory position at present, but to my mind one of the matters which illustrates quite clearly the unsatisfactory nature of the present position is the amount of assistance week by week which has to be given by voluntary charitable institutions to these people. No doubt there is a prominent place for these charitable institutions in making particular benefits available to pensioned people, but I do not think it is right that those voluntary organisations should have to help in order that those people may be able to keep body and soul together. That is a responsibility which is on the nation and which should be met from the Treasury.

As it is now, these pensioned people have to depend on national assistance, voluntary organisations or help from their own families, or they have to turn to other sources in order to have anything like a decent standard of living. These people, whether they are 60 or 100 per cent. disabled, have lost something out of their lives. We talk about people who have given their lives—who have given their tomorrow for our today. The injured person is giving part of his today. The least we can see is that he is in a position to maintain himself decently without looking to the charity, of either organisations or individuals.

In addition to that, he should be in a position to buy reasonably modest luxuries, as some recompense for the contribution he has made to us and to the nation. We are not asking that this subject should be treated in an extravagant fashion, but if we are going to be parsimonious about the expenditure of public money, let us not be parsimonious in this particular direction. I hope the Minister will give us fresh hope that the position will be reviewed in the very near future. The only increase in these rates, both as regards partially disabled and totally disabled, has been 12½ per cent. in 29 years. When one remembers what has happened with regard to the purchasing power of money and to wages, it is highly unsatisfactory, and something should be done about it without delay.

I think perhaps I may be entitled to claim the indulgence of the House since, while it is not the first time that I have addressed it, it is the first time that I have had the pleasure of addressing it in my new office. As is the case on these occasions, there are many specialists present who have devoted, as has the hon. Gentleman the Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser), years of their lives to working for ex-Service men and who have studied details of the administration of my Ministry in a way that I myself have not yet had the opportunity of doing. As I have been in the office only a very few days, the House will appreciate that I am still a learner. There is much I have still to learn, and the House, therefore, will not expect me this afternoon to be able to answer some of the more detailed points that have been raised. I want, while I hold the office, to make sound judgments, and so I must not make hasty judgments.

I would also like to point out to the House that the main case which has been this afternoon is obviously a case of a wide general nature on which, in any event, a decision of the whole Government and not of the Minister himself would be necessary. If there were to be some general and all-round improvement, it could only be made after consultation with my colleagues. Clearly, then, no special decision could be announced this afternoon, but I do intend to take into account everything that has been said, and I will take the earliest opportunity of reading very carefully all that hon. Members on both sides of the House have said.

I would not like this first opportunity of mine to pass without saying a word of appreciation of the great services which my predecessor rendered while he held this appointment. I would like to join in the expressions of appreciation which were made to him a short time ago, and to add my own good wishes for his success in his new post. Whatever criticisms may be made, nobody, at any rate, would dare to say that Mr. Buchanan's attitude was cynical, or un-British, if I may quote a phrase from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore). Every hon. Member of this House from time to time has cases which he has to bring to the attention of the Minister, and all of us who brought cases to Mr. Buchanan's attention know how they were received, and feel grateful for the spirit in which they were considered. To follow a predecessor who has done that, of course, makes my task very much easier in some ways, since he has, as it were, blazed the trail for me. In some ways, however, it makes it much more difficult for me, because, though I certainly hope to follow his good example, I cannot possibly hope to excel his achievements.

The first opportunity which I had as Minister of Pensions to play any official part at all, as it happens, was last Saturday, when I visited the Rookwood Hospital near my own constituency, and I had the honour of meeting there men who had undoubtedly exhibited great bravery in battle, but who seemed to me today, if I may speak of something of which, fortunately, I have had no experience myself, to be exhibiting even greater bravery in their daily lives. I do not want the House to think for one moment that I do not appreciate what these men have done or that I am not moved by experiences like that in the deepest possible manner with sympathy for what they have gone through. The Ministry will continue to treat these cases, while I am Minister, in the spirit of social service, regarding itself as charged with the duty of paying the debt which the whole nation owes to these men for what they have done for the nation.

As I said, I am still learning, and I have learned a great deal more this afternoon. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Lonsdale, and other hon. Members who have spoken, for the information they have given me and for the opportunity they have given me to hear some of the great knowledge which they possess on this subject. I am not always clear on some of the details, but perhaps I may make some general observations which occur to me after hearing what has been said.

We must remember that we are discussing this general question against a background of a determined effort by the Government to check inflation and to bring down prices. A general reduction of prices might be just as beneficial as any general increase in incomes to pay those prices, and we must not forget that that effort is going on. As I have said already, I do not think that the full effects of the Budget recently introduced have yet been felt, and we must not conclude that inflation will continue and that prices will continue to rise. In fairness we must also remember that we should take into account all the incomes paid to other unfortunate persons in the community, as well as to the war disabled, by the various social services, and the Government has, I think, recognised that there is an obligation to take into account all the other payments that are made to other sections of the community.

I am glad that the hon. Member for Lonsdale, in making comparisons with the incomes of other sections of the community, compared the wages of 1919 with wages today. In reading past Debates on this subject, I have noticed that too often there has been a tendency to compare the wages today with the wages as they were in 1932. I am glad that he did not do that today, and I have no criticism to make of what he said about the movements of wages since 1919. If we were to make comparisons with 1932, then it would be fair to remind the House that there was no reduction in the pension payments to take account of the fall in the cost of living which took place during the years of the depression.

Another general observation I would like to make is that to grant 90s. a week as the basic pension, which has been mentioned outside the House, though it was not mentioned here this afternoon, would, I am advised, cost the taxpayer £34 million a year. In all these matters we have to bear in mind—undoubtedly nobody really disputes this—what the total cost to the taxpayer of any improvement might be. I have read previous Debates on this subject, and I find that my immediate predecessors, including Mr. Buchanan, whose work is so highly appreciated, felt that in all the circumstances—the circumstances of the provision of new and extended social services for all classes in the community and the necessity to watch any upward movement of incomes carefully in the light of the inflationary situation—given some limit, as limit there must be, to any increased expenditure that was possible, the best results from the possible expenditure would come from concentrating upon improving the lot of the most severely disabled and unemployable.

The House will recognise that a great deal has already been done in pursuit of that policy which my predecessors followed. We must remember that the allowances for the most severe cases have been very greatly increased during recent years, in some cases, I believe, as much as doubled. Also we must not forget that even those who have obtained employment but have obtained jobs rather lower in earning power than the jobs they previously held, have had specific compensation on that account.

Could the Minister say how many are in that class?

I am sorry I cannot do that without notice, but I should be glad to write—

I think the Minister will find that it is only a handful, under 2,000.

If allowances are being paid to men who have suffered that disability, then clearly all who have suffered the disability are entitled to them.

Under 2,000 out of three-quarters of a million.

I do not dispute the figure. If it is under 2,000, then it means that less than 2,000 suffer from that disability. However, I shall be glad to look into it. I also want to remind the House that a great deal has been done over the years in improving the ability of the disabled to obtain employment. Coupled with our success in maintaining full employment during the last three years, this has meant that a surprisingly large proportion of the pensioners are wage earners. I asked for what figures were available on this point and I found that the Ministry of Labour records show that out of a total of 700,000 registered disabled ex-Service men, 43,000 only, or 6 per cent. were unemployed. The Ministry of Pensions took some sample inquiries of a fairly wide coverage and found that of all war pensioners of all kinds, over 80 per cent. appear to be at work, and that of the war pensioners reckoned as 100 per cent. disabled, 40 per cent. are at work. That is an important point which must be borne in mind in considering the earnings of pensioners. The remainder, those who are not in work and are not earning wages, have substantial supplementations. Nobody suggests, I think, that we should reduce those supplementations in order to improve the basic rate.

Reference was made to the new injuries scheme for miners, and it was evident that there was some difference of opinion between the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. R. Williams) and hon. Members opposite about that. I do not wish to enter into that controversy, but I think the hon. Member for Wigan was right in pointing out that at least some measure of the improved opportunities given to miners by this scheme, over and above what is available to the rest of the community, is explicable by the special circumstances of the mining industry and its past history. I have not time to say much about that this afternoon, but I will say that it will be carefully considered.

By raising the previous 40s. rate to 45s. when the new National Industrial Insurance scheme was introduced, we recognised that there must be some relation between these various schemes of compensation for industry and those for war disabled. As I said earlier, I will study carefully what was said about the miners' scheme and its reactions upon the payments made by my Ministry. I also undertake to study most carefully, and I hope most sympathetically, all the evidence that has been put before me this afternoon, and the other evidence which will undoubtedly be put before me, as time goes on, by the various associations and individuals who have special knowledge and experience in this matter.