Orders of the Day — Safety in Employment (Inspection and Safety Organisation) Bill

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 26 February 1954.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr William Paling Mr William Paling , Dewsbury 12:00, 26 February 1954

There have been resolutions galore about this matter from meetings in almost every industry in the country for very many years. The trade union organisations have been greatly interested in it since long before the war.

The Chief Inspector of Factories has no doubt about the importance of safety committees. He said this about them in 1932: I envisage the possibility of the Factory Department co-operating in the work of these committees … maximum results are Obtained only when more direct responsibility is placed upon the workers. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents has stated: There can be no question about the desirability of appointing a joint safety committee of management and workers. The formation of a joint committee is of real practical value. I want to see a national network of such committees, with uniform and defined statutory powers. When the workers know that something can be done, they will use them to the full, and accidents can be reduced. The Chief Inspector of Factories has frequently pointed out the weaknesses of existing voluntary committees which are purely advisory. These weaknesses lead to lack of confidence as far as the workers are concerned.

The limitation of the employee to a purely advisory role in a matter which affects him so closely has produced an attitude of suspicion to purely voluntary committees and to managerial safety officials which has not been eliminated by the results of their work. Furthermore, the suspicion that too much activity in safety matters will prejudice his employment has not encouraged the worker. For these reasons the position should be defined by statute.

We would all agree that accidents cannot be prevented by Acts and regulations, nor by inspectors who visit periodically. Education, propaganda, co-operation and safety consciousness on the part of employers and employees at the place of work are required in addition.

The proposals in my Bill are advanced because of the facts that I have mentioned and because of the need for a new approach. It is proposed that all employers and employees where more than five are employed must co—operate to set up accident prevention machinery. Safety delegates, protected from victimisation, are to be elected. They have power of inspection and complaint as to bad conditions of work. They can refer matters to the appropriate inspectorate. Where more than 50 are employed, a safety committee must be elected from both sides, and the committee has defined powers as outlined in the Bill. This network of organisation at the place of work could be supplemented by a national occupational health and safety committee with power to recommend new legislation and research.

I am informed that the experts do not agree with these proposals. It would be interesting to know on what grounds they disagree with them. As an illustration of the interest which is taken in the proposals, I have here letters from the principal unions in the country supporting the Bill. These include the National Union of Mineworkers, the Transport and General Workers' Union, the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Employees, and the National Union of Railway men. All of them state that backing can be obtained from the trade union movement for improvements in the field of safety in employment.