HC Deb 17 August 1887 vol 319 cc831-63
MR. BURT (Morpeth)

I wish to move an Amendment which stands on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell)—namely, to leave out General Rule 33, for the purpose of inserting— Where persons are employed underground, ambulances or stretchers, with splints and bandages, shall be kept at the mine ready for immediate use in case of accident. The Rule provides that— Where more than fifty persons are usually employed underground, stretchers and bandages shall be kept at the mine for use in case of accident. I trust that the Home Secretary will accept the Amendment. It was one of the matters agreed upon at the Conference, and it has been urged again and again at the conferences of the workmen. It is scarcely necessary to point out that it is of the utmost importance, whenever an accident occurs, for those who may be injured to receive immediate attention. It is well known that when accidents have occurred deaths have frequently resulted on account of the want of appliances in the mine for the conveyance of injured persons to their homes. I am sure that hon. Members who are connected with the Army will be interested in this question, and will support my proposal, which is dictated in the interests of common sense and humanity. It is not necessary that I should make an elaborate speech; but I certainly regard the matter as one which deserves the serious consideration of the Committee.

Amendment proposed,

In page 34, leave out general rule 33, and insert—"Where persons are employed underground, ambulances or stretchers, with splints and bandages, shall be kept at the mine ready for immediate use in case of accident."—(Mr. Burt.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

In introducing the Rule I had the same purpose in view as the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), and it certainly appears to be desirable that that object should be carried out. My desire has been entirely that of the hon. Member; but I understand that he prefers his own proposal. I would suggest, however, that he should strike out of the Amendment the reference to "splints," because no unskilled person could apply splints properly, and I am afraid that a sufficient amount of knowledge and skill could not be found among ordinary workmen in a mine. The Amendment refers to the use of ambulances. I had ambulances in my mind; but I did not use the word, because it conveys the idea of a carriage or a vehicle of some kind, and in a great number of the mines it would be impracticable to employ vehicles. I thought it would be better to use the more technical words "stretchers upon which any wounded man maybe carried." I desire to assist the hon. Member as far as possible; but I can assure him that in many of the mines it would be altogether impracticable to use ambulances. Many of the roadways are too narrow for anything of the kind. I would, therefore, suggest to the hon. Member the propriety of retaining the word "stretchers" and striking out "ambulances."

MR. BURT

I fully recognize the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman has met the Amendment, and I admit the force of his objection in regard to the use of the word "splints." At the same time, I adhere to the opinion I have expressed that in some cases an ambulance is necessary. I quite see that splints may be useless unless there is a medical man to apply them. All I desire, however, is that they should be placed in the mine so that they may be available whenever it is practicable. With regard to ambulances, I speak from personal experience. I have known cases of men who have been injured having to be carried a considerable distance without any provision existing in the colliery for their proper conveyance, and the result has been that they have suffered severely from being shaken about.

SIR WALTER FOSTER (Derby, Ilkeston)

Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman agrees to the word "splints?"

MR. MATTHEWS

Yes, as far as I am personally concerned.

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

While I am in favour of every practical remedy and appliance being provided, I am of opinion that care ought to be taken not to require the mineowners to do things that are impossible.

MR. J. B. BALFOUR (Clackmannan, &c.)

May I point out that there is an alternative? The Amendment says 'ambulances or stretchers."

Question put, and agreed to.

Rule, as amended, agreed to.

Rule 34—Wilful damage.

Rule agreed to.

Rule 35—Observance of directions.

Rule agreed to.

Rule 36 —Books and copies thereof.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. A. J. Williams) is not in Order. These are not special rules for a particular mine, but general rules.

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS (Glamorgan, S.)

Then, at what stage of the Committee can I bring my Amendment forward?

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member may bring it up as a new clause.

MR. PICKARD (Yorkshire, W.R., Normanton)

The next Amendment is in my name; but I must point out that there is a slight error in it which, perhaps, the Committee will allow me to correct. I propose to leave out the second word "at" in line 27, after the word "office," and insert the words "and in." The rule will then read in this way— The books mentioned in these Rules shall he provided by the owner, agent, or manager, and the books, or a correct copy thereof, shall be kept at the office and in the mine, and any Inspector under this Act, and any person employed in the mine may at all reasonable times inspect and take copies of, and extracts from any such books; but nothing in these rules shall be construed to impose the obligation of keeping any such book or copy thereof for more than 12 months after the book has ceased to be used for enteries therein under the Act. My contention is that these books should be kept in the mine as well as in the office.

Amendment proposed, in page 24, line 27, after "office," leave out "at," and insert "and in."—(Mr. Pickard.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'at' stand part of the Rule."

MR. MATTHEWS

I must point out that this is a general rule, and that there are many mines in the country in which it would be impossible to have any office under ground in which the books could be kept. I admit that there are various things which cannot be dealt with by a general rule, but it may be dealt with by special rules. There are, however, many mines in which books could not be kept.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM (Lanark, N.W.)

Why not?

MR. MATTHEWS

For instance, they could not be kept in proper preservation in a place where there is a large quantity of dripping water. The question is one which ought to be dealt with by a special rather than a general rule, because this rule applies to all mines, and it cannot be suggested that in every mine throughout the country it is either practicable or desirable to keep books.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

As a matter of construction, I would submit to the right hon. Gentleman that words might be inserted imposing an obligation upon the mine-owners to establish an office in every mine. I would suggest that it would be quite sufficient to say that wherever there is an office it should be necessary to keep the books there.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. MASON (Lanark, Mid)

I have to move in the same Rule, in line 29, after "mine," to insert "or anyone having the written authority of any Inspector or person so employed." I know that the miners attach great importance to this Amendment, and I trust that the Government will accept it.

Amendment proposed, in page 34, line 28. after "mine," insert "or anyone having the written authority of any Inspector or person so employed."—(Mr. Mason.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART-WORTLEY) (Sheffield, Hallam)

Of course, the workmen would have the right to inspect the hooks under this clause; but it might not be altogether desirable in all cases to allow the books to be inspected by strangers.

MR. MASON

In the event of an accident occurring a workman may be injured, and may not be able to inspect the books for himself. These books are not of any secret nature, and I think it is desirable that the relatives of the workman, for instance, should have a right of examining them.

MR. MATTHEWS

Surely a fellow workman could act for a wounded man. The Amendment, I am afraid, would admit any stranger, which I think would be objectionable.

MR. MASON

An injured miner may have friends outside the mine who would be able to give him considerable help in the matter, and as these books are in no respect secret, it may be of importance that persons acting for the workman should have power to inspect, for instance, the registers kept in the mine. In many cases it may be desirable that there should be an inspection of the books, in order to satisfy the families of injured men in regard to the real facts of the case.

MR. A. J.WILLIAMS

I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Lanarkshire (Mr. Mason) that it is desirable to give the workmen the power of appointing some independent person to go down the mine and inspect the books. There is a great deal more in the Amendment than appears at first sight. I know there is a strong feeling among the miners, especially in large mines upon this point. Many of them are anxious to have a periodical inspection, but they feel that unless this were made compulsory it might be considered ungracious on their part to send in an unfavourable Report. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment, and will consent to make the inspection compulsory.

MR. JOICEY (Durham, Chester-le-Street)

I hope the Government will give way, because I cannot see the slightest weight in the objection they have taken to the Amendment. At the same time, I do not see that this right of inspection will be of any practical benefit to the miners.

Question put, and agreed to.

Rule, as amended, agreed, to.

Rule 37—Periodical inspection on behalf of workmen.

THE CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for the Normanton Division of Yorkshire(Mr. Pickard), does not seem to me to be admissible. It would make the Rule applicable to particular mines, whereas it is proposed to be inserted as a general rule.

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS

The next Amendment is in my name. It is a very small Amendment—namely, to leave out "may" in Rule 37, in order to insert "shall." The Rule says— The persona employed in a mine may from time to time appoint two of their number to inspect the mine at their own cost, and the persons so appointed shall be allowed, once at least in every month, accompanied, if the owner, agent, or manager of the mine thinks fit, by himself or one or more officers of the mine, to go to every part of the mine, and to inspect the shafts, levels, places, working places, return airways, ventilating apparatus, old workings, and machinery. Every facility shall be afforded by the owner, agent, and manager, and all persons in the mine for the purpose of the inspection; and the persons appointed shall make a true report of the result of the inspection, and their report shall be recorded in a book to be kept at the mine for the purpose, and shall be signed by the persons who made the inspection; and if the report state the existence, or apprehended existence, of any danger, the owner, agent, or manager shall forthwith cause a true copy of the report to be sent to the Inspector of the district. My Amendment, instead of making this provision permissive, will render it compulsory. These inspections, to my mind, are the most important inspections that can be made. Representing as I do a large mining constituency, I know, as a matter of fact, that the inspections are not carried on periodically, and there is a strong impression that the men do not like to make them. In my opinion, they ought to have sufficient courage and independence to enable them to carry on an inspection, seeing that their lives and safety are in their own hands. If the Government oppose the Amendment, I have no wish to press it; but I must express nay firm conviction that, unless these inspections are regularly made, this clause, in nine cases out of 10, will be a dead letter. I beg, therefore, to move this Amendment, which will make it obligatory that every colliery shall be inspected by the workmen once a month.

Amendment proposed, in page 34, line 36, leave out "may," and insert "shall."—(Mr. A. J. Williams.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Rule."

MR. MATTHEWS

I entirely share the views of the hon. Member that in every colliery this work of inspection should be periodically undertaken. I believe that nothing would more readily tend to promote a good understanding between the employers and the men. The hon. Member, however, proposes to insert "shall" instead of "may," but this is one of the instances in which the words at the beginning of the clause, "so far as is reasonably practicable" come in. What are to be the consequences to the workmen themselves if they do not make this inspection periodical? Are proceedings to be taken against them if they have failed to do it? Is it the object of the hon. Member, in inserting this word "shall," to authorize the taking into custody for the purpose of having them fined and proceeded against by summary jurisdiction, of workmen who have failed to comply with this rule? That is one objection against making the rule imperative—namely, the difficulty of enforcing the demand. I do not think that we could trust to any summary jurisdiction to compel an inspection on the part of the workmen. If workmen are to be fined for not making the inspection, they would certainly look upon the rule with disapprobation and disgust. I certainly think it will be better to authorize and empower the workmen to make an inspection without compelling them to do so. Whenever they think there is danger they will have the right of demanding an inspection, and of making an investigation into the matter themselves.

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS

If the right hon. Gentleman would allow the inspection to be made by other working-men I would accept that alteration, but I attach, very great importance to this power of making the inspection imperative.

MR. BURT

I entirely sympathize with the object my hon. Friend has in view in moving the Amendment; and I also agree with him in attaching the utmost importance to an inspection by the workmen. I advocated the principle at the time it was imported into the existing Act, and I think it is one of the most valuable provisions of that Act. Whenever I have had an opportunity I have endeavoured to impress upon the workmen the importance and duty of carrying it out; but when my hon. Friend goes to the extent of making the inspection compulsory, I would point out to him that there are practical difficulties in the way. Wherever the workmen are organized, and have trades unions—whatever difference of opinion there may be as to the value of trades unions—this work of inspection is usually carried out. But where you have no such organization how are you to do it? Would you institute proceedings against individual workmen because, unless you impose some penalty, and endeavour to make the rule effective, there would be very little advantage in inserting it in the Act. For this reason I think the Amendment is impracticable. But my hon. Friend has done good service in calling the attention of the workmen to the importance of availing themselves of this provision. If I disagree with my hon. Friend in this matter, I fully appreciate the valuable services he rendered to the miners in connection with the Royal Commission, and I know of no one who has done more to secure the protection of life and property in mines. At the same time, I do not think that it would be desirable to bring in workmen and others who are not employed in the mine, and allow them to inspect the works. I think that that would be very undesirable.

MR.A.J.WILLIAMS

After what my hon. Friend has said, I shall not insist upon the Amendment, but will withdraw it at once. My hon. Friend spoke about the action of trades unions. Unfortunately the time has not yet arrived when, the workmen in all the mines have been thoroughly organized, but I believe that the system of trades unions is being very rapidly developed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)

I propose in the same rule to move an Amendment which stands on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Merthyr-Tydvil, (Mr. C. James) —namely, to leave out the words "of their number," in order to insert "practical miners." The rule provides that "the miners employed in the mine may from time to time appoint two of their number to inspect the mine." Now this is an Amendment which, in my opinion, is of very considerable consequence to those parts of the country where the organization which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Morpeth is not as perfect as it is in Northumberland, Durham, and parts of Wales. In many of the mines very great difficulties have been experienced in getting men to consent to take upon themselves what is regarded as the invidious duty of inspecting the arrangements made by their employers. They feel that if by doing so they offend the employers, oven if at the moment they may not be visited with pains and penalties, yet they may possibly in the future suffer from having put themselves forward in the matter of inspecting the mine. It is very much like the case of the Greek warrior who wanted to be protected from the wrath of Agamemnon for all time. It is for a similar reason that the men desire to be able to appoint men who are beyond the reach of the mine-owner, whose anger the men themselves are afraid of incurring. Although it may not be a matter of much consequence where the miners' organization is very powerful, and they are able to assert their rights and impose their will upon the employer, yet it is of very great consequence in Scotland and parts of England where the organization of the miners is very weak, and where an inspection of this kind is only undertaken with fear and trembling.

Amendment proposed, in page 34, line 37, leave out "of their number," and insert "practicalminers."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'of their number' stand part of the Rule."

SIR WALTER FOSTER

If the Amendment is accepted, it may result in the appointment of men to inspect the mine who are not themselves working in the particular mine which it is proposed to inspect. If the appointment of such men be considered undesirable, then I think it would be better to leave these words in, and add after the words "two of their number" the words "being practical miners."

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

The object I desire to effect is, that the men appointed shall not necessarily be employed in the mine.

MR. T. D. BOLTON (Derbyshire, N.E.)

The difficulty may be met by saying "two of their number, or two practical miners," so that it would cover the case of men who are not strong enough to act by themselves. I know that that state of matters does exist in some parts of the country, and that the men in reality do not dare to appoint two of their number to make the necessary inspection. Under these circumstances, I would ask the hon. Gentle- man to substitute "or two practical miners."

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

I trust the hon. Member will accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Derbyshire (Mr. T. D. Bolton). This very point of having two men appointed who are not employed in the mine is a matter which the miners of Scotland specially insist upon. They do not charge anything against the mine-owners, nor are they anxious to fight the matter on personal grounds. They make no insinuation that they are subject to intimidation; but there are men who have been accustomed all their lives to treat their managers and owners as a sort of superior beings, and they cannot bring themselves to act contrary to their wishes, even when they know that justice and right are on their side. I may say that a proposal to this effect was adopted unanimously in the miners conference, and that it is invariably carried out where the miners organization is strong enough to insist upon inspection.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I am ready to accept the suggested Amendment, but I think it would be practically nugatory, because, if we say "two practical miners," it would still be open to the workmen to choose any two of their own number.

MR. T. D. BOLTON

My desire is that the men themselves should appoint two of their own number, and this is an instruction to them to do so, and in doing so, they would be able to appoint two practical miners who were connected with, other mines. I think it is desirable that they should have the power of appointing two men other than those who are working in the mine.

COLONEL BLUNDELL (Lancashire, S.W., Ince)

There is no objection on the part of the mineowners to an inspection of the mine by the workmen, and it is desirable that they should make such, an inspection, but the reason the workmen very rarely avail themselves of the rule, is simply because they are not paid for conducting an inspection. If they were entitled to be paid for their work, as examiners are, that fact might, I think, prevent any difficulty.

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

The object of giving the workmen this power is to enable them to ascertain accurately the state of the mine. That is the object of this general rule, and if you are to appoint two practical miners to discharge the duty, I do not think that you ought to be tied down to the very mine in which the men are employed. I have no desire to use any harsh expression upon the subject, but I could mention a few cases where men employed in the mine, having made an examination of this kind, have been badly treated afterwards in consequence. As there is nothing to lose, and a very great deal to gain by the adoption of the Amendment, I hope the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary will concede the point.

MR. DONALD CRAWFORD (Lanark, N.E.)

An inspection by the men themselves is worth all the other inspection put together; but there is some doubt whether, as the clause now stands, that sort of inspection could be frequently carried out. I am sensible of the force of the objections which have been urged by the Home Secretary to the proposal that the inspection should be compulsory. I am prepared to admit that the inspection cannot be made compulsory, but I think it is our duty to provide for an inspection in some other manner. Now, in Lanarkshire and in other parts of the United Kingdom where there is not a strong organization among the miners themselves, this power to inspect the mine by the working men is a completely a dead letter, and until Parliament revives it and makes it cease to be a dead letter, and a really useful and effective enactment, it will be impossible to put any Mines Regulation Bill upon a practical and satisfactory footing. I would, therefore urge upon the Committee the propriety of accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member for East Donegal as it is proposed to be amended by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire (Mr. T. D. Bolton).

SIR JOSEPH PEASE (Durham, Barnard Castle)

As I understand the objection of the hon. Member for Morpeth, it is against taking men from one mine to inspect another. My own opinion is that it would be highly objectionable to give power, in this Bill, to the miners to make an inspection from time to time, and then to allow them to decline to make the inspection themselves, but to bring in their neighbours without limit. If we enact provisions of that nature, it will be clear that the miners themselves are unfit to protect their own lives and interests. Let me ask what the Government inspection has been established for? The Government Inspector is bound to come whenever he is called upon by the men working in the mine in order to save them from the kind of obloquy which appears to have attached to them in Scotland, but which certainly does not attach to them in any other place that I know of. All I can say is that I could at this moment lay my hand on at least 500 miners who are capable of passing an examination in scientific attainments. Indeed, I should be prepared to-morrow to find 80,000 miners in the North of England who are enrolled in the very best Provident Societies. As a matter of fact, I do not know many cases where I could not lay my hand upon a man who is quite as capable of sitting here as a Member of this House as I am myself, or any other hon. Member, and yet it seems to be inferred that working colliers are such fools that they cannot be trusted to look after their own lives and interests. I believe that before many years have passed this measure will be looked upon as a thing belonging to the past, and as being applicable only to a very crude state of society. I am certain it will be found that there are many men among the large body of working miners who are far better able to take care of their own interests than 670 Members sitting in this House. I cannot help thinking that the attempt we are now making to nurse these men is altogether uncalled for. Are we to take them to their work, and put their comforters around their necks, bring them back when their day's labour is ended, and tuck them up in their beds at night? This is a kind of grandmotherly legislation which I do not think the men themselves will appreciate.

MR. PICKARD

I rise to support the Amendment. I speak only of Yorkshire, because I know more about Yorkshire than any other county; and I feel convinced that when this measure has passed, and it is put in force, unless there is some such provision as this, the men who have been employed to examine the workings in a mine, and who have reported unfavourably of them, will be liable to be turned away either directly or indirectly from the colliery or pit in which they have been working. It will be impossible for them to accept the terms which may be offered to them, and they will feel themselves bound to leave the colliery. It is all very well for the hon. Baronet to talk about grandmotherly legislation; but I know that the Amendment is very necessary, because managers do put a gag on miners employed in the pit, and if any man chooses to speak his own mind, as certain as he does so the manager will lay hold of the fact as an excuse for getting rid of him. I therefore urge upon the Home Secretary, as he has already accepted many Amendments in the hope of making the Bill really workable, that he will place in the hands of the men themselves the power of looking after their own interests. At the present moment, although there is a permissive power of inspection, the miners themselves feel that unless they are thoroughly organized they are unable to do the work. I do not understand that the Government intend to appoint a large number of Sub-Inspectors in order to see that this work of inspection shall be more efficiently carried out than it is at present; and if they do not intend to entertain a proposal of that kind, this Amendment is absolutely necessary for the protection of the miners, and even for the protection of the mineowners themselves.

MR. C. S. KENNY (York, W. R., Barnsley)

So far as the inspection of mines is concerned, the existing staff of Inspectors is altogether inadequate, even to permit an annual examination of each mine. The hon. Baronet the Member for Durham (Sir Joseph Pease) seems to doubt the necessity of examining the mine.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

No, no!

MR. C. S. KENNY

I would only remind hon. Members that the Commission on Accidents in Mines reported strongly upon the great importance of an inspection of the mine; and year after year the Reports of the Inspectors have urged the necessity of an adequate and thorough inspection. I find that attention has been called to the violation of the principle involved in this clause, and also to the irritation which its exercise produces. We were told in the Report of the Inspectors for 1886 that over and over again this power of inspection was not exercised in the way in which it ought to have been. It was only in a comparatively few instances that any inspection whatever was carried out, and the general feeling seems to have been that whenever an inspection has been made there has been a tendency, on the part of the employers, to make it unpleasant for the workmen. Even when, the inspection has taken place, it has been unsatisfactory, because the workmen themselves have evinced an inclination to excuse anything that they find to be wrong, and to make matters satisfactory to the masters. I think it is of the utmost importance that the miners should be able to appoint monthly Inspectors, and that they should have power to select men to peform the work of inspection who would be under no fear or terror, so far as the owners are concerned. We may be told, no doubt, that it is unreasonable to suppose that the mineowners will persecute men for giving a faithful Report; but I would submit to the Committee that the question is, whether this power is a reasonable one, and whether it does or does not exist? If it does exist, and an inspection takes place, the same evils will result, even if the power were real, and not imaginary.

MR. MATTHEWS

I hope the Committee will not continue to discuss this small matter at any length.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

This small matter?

MR. MATTHEWS

Yes; it is a very small matter, when we consider the other important questions which are to be brought forward. The hon. Member for Morpeth has himself said that inspection, in order to be satisfactory, should be conducted by the men employed in the mine.

MR. BURT

The right hon. Gentleman does me no injustice. I did express that opinion, and I adhere to it. I think it is best that the workmen who are employed in a particular mine should be the men to inspect that mine, and I must say that most of the cases which have been referred to are entirely outside my own experience. As a matter of fact, I believe the condition of things is such that the only satisfactory inspection should be conducted by the miners employed in a particular pit. But, at the same time, I do not think that any harm would result if the Home Secretary were to accept the Amendment, and, by so doing, concede that there are oases in which it is necessary that independent outsiders should be brought in. It has been pointed out that whenever an action of that kind would be necessary it would only be so because the men who are working in a pit are so disorganized that they are incapable of protecting themselves. In such a ease it is likely that their interests would be better secured by getting men employed in other mines to conduct the inspection.

MR. MATTHEWS

I am quite willing to meet the views of hon. Members opposite if I can. I quite agree with the importance of am examination of the mine by the working miners, and I am, therefore, willing to accept in substance the Amendment of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, by inserting after "two of their number" the words "or any two practical working miners."

COLONEL BLUNDELL

May I suggest to the Committee that the effect of this proposal would be to establish an independent and unofficial staff of examiners. I cannot say that I concur with the proposal to place this power of selecting examiners not employed in the mine in the hands of the working miners themselves, seeing that it will take away responsibility from the persons who ought to be held responsible—namely, the manager, the agent, and the mine-owner. I do not think it is advisable that that should be done.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the Committee that if the words were inserted "two of their number, or two practical working miners," it would suggest that two of their number were not practical working miners. I think it ought to be "two other practical miners."

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to insert after "number" "or two other practical working miners."

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. MATTHEWS

I think it would be better to say "two practical working miners."

MR. FENWICK

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that "two practical miners" would be preferable. I attach the greatest importance to retaining the words "two of their number."

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! Those words are retained. The question now is what words are to be inserted after the word "number."

MR. FENWICK

Then I submit that "any two practical miners" ought to be the wording of the Amendment. If the Home Secretary can see his way to accept those works I think much valuable time may be saved. If he does not, I am afraid it will be necessary to have a debate which may extend to some length. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will prevent further waste of time by accepting the Amendment.

MR. MATTHEWS

I made an offer to the Committee some time ago, and there is a very slight difference between the words I propose to accept and the words "two practical miners."

MR. BRADLAUGH (Northampton)

The objection is a very simple one, because the Amendment which the Government propose to accept only provides that the men who are to be employed to inspect the mine shall be taken from some other pit than the pit which is to be examined, and there is a fear that the men selected under such circumstances, and who would, of course, be easily identified, may be made amenable to the discipline of the manager afterwards for the course they have taken.

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I desire to move an Amendment to omit from the Amendment the word "working." The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of this question as being a very small matter. So far from sharing that opinion, I am prepared to say frankly that if this Amendment is not adopted, as far as I can see, the Bill will not be worth accepting, at any rate, in those portions of the country where the miners are not thoroughly organized. It is perfectly clear that if you have an efficient system of inspection by practical miners themselves, acting on behalf of working colliers in the mines, that you would have a safeguard which at present does not exist. I think this is the most practicable and useful provision which can possibly be inserted in the Bill, and I know that the men themselves are exceedingly anxious to secure it. They feel that if they are compelled to accept "two of their own number" in any particular mine, or if they are restricted to "two practical miners at present engaged in the working of a mine," they will not be placed in that position of perfect in- dependence which they consider necessary to attain in order that the work may be efficiently done. If we insert the word "working" we confine the inspection to men actually employed in the mine. Everybody knows that it would be very simple for an employer to lay his hand on any particular individual employed in his own mine who might be selected to perform this invidious duty, and he would be able to point out to neighbouring mineowners that these individuals had been lending themselves to a system which was opposed to the interests of the employers as a body. The fear which such action may inspire would be fatal to any system of efficient inspection by the men or their representatives, and it would be just as fatal to have the men drawn from another pit as it would be for the inspection to be adopted by the men employed in the pit themselves. If you have a man who is a practical miner, and who has been a practical working miner for years past, and who has the confidence of the men who select him, what difference can it make for the purposes of inspection whether in the present week, or the present mouth, or the present year, he is engaged as a working miner? Indeed, I would suggest that it is far better that he should not be a working miner, but that he should be in a position of perfect independence in respect of all the employers of labour in the country. With this view, I beg to move the omission of the word "working."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "working."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'working' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. A. J. WILLIAMS

I am glad to find that the Committee are coming round to my view. I think it would be very much better, if it is practicable, not to take a working miner employed in the colliery. I therefore think we should be doing a valuable service by omitting the word "working," because there are a considerable number of collieries in certain parts of the country which are not properly organized. I think the effect of adopting the Amendment would be that in some districts the men would appoint practical working miners, who would become important additions to the body of official Inspectors, and who would really form an independent body of Inspectors. It is quite certain that the present staff of Inspectors would be altogether inadequate to discharge this duty; but I believe, further, that the colliers themselves would arrange to appoint thoroughly practical working miners to do the work, and that, in the end, the men so selected would be withdrawn from the work of the colliery, and would become the most important assistants to the work of inspection we could possibly get.

MR. PICKARD

May I point out to the Home Secretary that in the event of a working miner being appointed to do continuous work of this kind, in the event of his going from one mine to another, the retention of the word "working" would place him in this position—that it would be impossible for him to examine any other mine than that in which he had been absolutely working himself.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

I certainly entertain a strong objection to the omission of the word "working." If that word were excised, it would leave it open for any two practical miners who might be neighbouring mining engineers to be called in; and what I object to is that in that case it would not amount to an inspection by the workmen themselves. I am perfectly prepared to allow the working miners to appoint any two men of their own class they like; but we want to avoid any dispute among the workmen which might be involved by allowing the inspection of a colliery by mining engineers employed in neighbouring works. The words "any two practical miners not being mining engineers" would include all the secretaries of Trades Unions who have been practical miners, and would not involve the necessity of their being actually engaged in work at the time of their inspection. Mineowners do not object to an inspection being made by the men themselves; but what they want to avoid is that in any dispute among the workmen a colliery should be involved in an inspection by the engineer of a neighbouring mine.

MR. PICKARD

That objection might be met by inserting the word "colliery."

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

The word "colliery" would not do, because we have ironstone mines, and the miners employed in them are not called "colliers."

MR. FENWICK

The same objection might apply to the use of the word "mining engineer," because we do not regard a mining engineer as a miner. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnard Castle says the use of the word "colliery" is objectionable, and that there are many miners who are not colliers. But the term is one which is thoroughly understood. May I point out to the Home Secretary that if he insists upon including the word "working" in the Amendment, it will have the practical effect of prohibiting the miners in any district from selecting any of my hon. Friends around me to undertake an inspection of a mine, notwithstanding the fact that many of them have had very considerable experience in the working of mines. I submit that if the Amendment is carried in its present form, it will be quite open to any owner to object to any hon. Member of this House, however great his practical experience may have been. The effect of the Amendment would be to shut out myself and many of my hon. Friends from acting in the capacity of Inspector of a mine, although some of us have had 20 and 30 years' experience as working miners. I do not think that that is the intention of the Home Secretary; but I am afraid that it would be the effect of the Amendment if the word "working" is retained in it. I therefore trust that the right hon. Gentleman will feel inclined to drop that word.

MR. MATTHEWS

The compromise which I offered to the Committee was that these inspections, if conducted by outsiders, should not be carried out by a class of professional men who are not really working miners. What I was anxious to secure was that the Inspectors should be men engaged in the actual working of a mine, and not amateur Inspectors. That is what is meant by the Amendment. I intend no more than that, and I think that no more is effected by it. Am I to understand hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that they cannot trust the working miners employed in the mine themselves, and that, therefore, it is desirable to go outside, and to obtain the assistance of men who may have been working miners, but who are professional men, not really engaged in the working of a mine?

MR. FENWICK

I am sorry that the knowledge possessed by the right hon. Gentleman of the law and its administration is not such as to lead him to conclude that if the word "working" is retained in the Amendment it will be sufficient to prevent either myself or any of my hon. Friends from acting in the capacity of Inspector. I think any Lawyer would say that the retention of the word "working" would effectually prevent us from acting in any such capacity.

MR. TOMLINSON

What we object to, and what we are not prepared to submit to under this clause, is that men who may have been working miners years ago should come in now as unauthorized Inspectors. It would provide no additional safety for the workmen that such men should be able to come in to inspect the mine when their knowledge may be altogether out of date. I do not see why we should allow such persons any greater latitude than men who are practical working colliers employed in the mine.

MR. WARMINGTON (Monmouthshire, W.)

I must take exception to the law as it has been laid down by the Home Secretary. I doubt very much whether any Court of Law could be got to say that a working miner is a different person from a man working in a mine. That being so, I would suggest that we should have a practical miner, or a practical person who is, or has been, a working miner, and who has been so within a reasonable period. I think that would meet the views of my hon. Friends; but if we leave in the words "working miner," the person appointed as Inspector must be a person who at that moment is working in the mine.

MR. T. D. BOLTON

I should like to point out to the Home Secretary what would be the effect of this Amendment without the word "working." All these men could do would be to report the state of the mine, and if danger is apprehended to call the attention of the Inspector of the district to that danger. That is the entire amount of their power. Then what possible harm could it do if this report is made by a man who is a practical miner, but who at the actual time at which he makes his inspection is not working in connection with any mine? I hope the Home Secretary will, take that point into consideration, and will allow this discussion to close by withdrawing the word "working," the retention of which will only occasion great annoyance and inconvenience to the men, and cannot possibly do any good.

COLONEL BLUNDELL

I do not think that the Home Secretary would be well advised to leave out this word. The real effect of the Amendment would be to provide for the appointment of an unofficial Inspector of the mine, who might be any man the miners might choose to select. I should value very much the opinion of miners actually employed in a mine; but I do not think it right to have an unofficial inspection. The only real course is to appoint two men who are employed in the mine selected by the miners themselves, and I think they ought to be encouraged to carry out periodical inspection. I do not think, however, that we ought to frame the clause in such a way as to make it possible to appoint a miners' agent to conduct the inspection.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

I would venture to suggest that the words to be inserted should be "or any two persons not being mining engineers, who are, or have been, practical working miners."

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

I have no objection to withdraw my Amendment in favour of those words.

Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. MATTHEWS

As I desire to bring the discussion to a close, I am quite ready to withdraw my Amendment also.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, to insert the words "or any two persons not being mining engineers, who are, or have been, practical working miners.—(Sir Joseph Pease.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. TOMLINSON

I am very sorry to feel it my duty to oppose the Amendment; but I do so on the ground that if it is adopted a man may be appointed who was working in a mine 20 years ago, and then took up with agitation. [Cries of "Agreed!"] I certainly know that there are men of that character, and I am afraid that we may run the risk of handing over the inspection of a mine to agitators who really know nothing about the present conditions under which a mine is worked.

Question put, and agreed to.

On the Motion of Mr. TOMLINSON, Amendment made in page 35, line 2, after "shall," by inserting "forthwith."

Rule, as amended, agreed to.

MR. DONALD CRAWFORD

I now propose to add a new rule— Rule 38.—No person shall be allowed to work alone in the mine until he has had three years' experience of working in a mine under the direct supervision of a skilled workman. I may say that representations have reached me from all parts of the country in favour of an Amendment of this kind. The miners feel that their lives are placed in very great danger in consequence of the employment of entirely unskilled labour in a very dangerous work. I do not think that it is necessary to argue at any length in favour of the Amendment. I will only make this remark, that I have been informed that lives have been constantly in danger by inexperienced men being allowed to work in mines. I have no objection to accept an Amendment which may make provision for the labour of boys employed in leading horses and others not actually employed at the fall of the workings.

Amendment proposed,

In page 35, line 8, after rule 37, insert— "Rule 38. No person shall be allowed to work alone in the mine until he has had three years' experience of working in a mine under the direct supervision of a skilled workman."— (Mr. Donald Crawford.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted,"

MR. MATTHEWS

I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment. I regret to say that these words— No person shall be allowed to work alone in a mine until he has had three years' experience of working in a mine under the direct supervision of a skilled workman, are very vague and indefinite. What sort of work does the Amendment apply to? Does it mean that if a man has been engaged for three years in one kind of work he may then go to another description of work of which he has had no experience at all; or is it intended that every man, before he gets regular employment in a mine, is to undergo a period of apprenticeship?

MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR

As I understand the object of ray hon. Friend, it is to secure that no person shall be allowed to work as a hewer or coal getter in any working place in a mine until he has had three years' experience. Many persons have written to me making a similar suggestion, almost in the very words of this Amendment; but most of them desire the restriction to be applied to persons who are actually engaged in a working place in getting coal.

MR. BURT

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this is an important Amendment in the direction of protecting life. There was very little of the evidence which came before the Royal Commission, to which more importance was attached than that which related to the number of accidents which happen from unskilled persons being allowed to perform certain kinds of work in the mines. The Amendment may require some modification; and the hon. Member who moves it has himself intimated that in its existing form it is probably too strict. It deals, however, with a matter of considerable importance, and I certainly hope that something in the direction indicated -will be adopted,

MR. TOMLINSON

The last thing that any mineowner would wish would be that unskilled workmen should be employed in the mine. What I want to know, however, is how you are to carry out a provision of this kiud—namely, that no man is to be able to work alone until he has had three years' experience in the mine. What is to be the machinery by which you are to be able to find out that fact?

MR. BROADHURST (Nottingham, W.)

I think the Home Secretary was somewhat unnecessarily severe upon my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Lanark. The object of the Amendment is perfectly clear, and it is to provide that no man shall be permitted to hew or cut coal in a mine until he is able to give some guarantee that he has a knowledge of the work, and can safely take his place among other men employed in the mine. The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that it is the custom in most trades and professions in this country to require an apprenticeship, and if apprenticeship is necessary in any case, I am certainly not acquainted with any industry in which it is more necessary than in getting coal. May I add that the right hon. Gentleman himself must have underwent a considerable apprenticeship before he was called to the Bar, and that he must have passed difficult examinations.

An hon. MEMBER

No; he had only to eat a certain number of dinners.

MR. BROADHURST

The qualification, then, for the Bar is eating dinners. I certainly was not aware that that was the only qualification. However, there is a kind of apprenticeship required, and I think that an apprenticeship in regard to mining matters is quite as necessary as an apprenticeship in many other industries and professions. If steps were taken to enforce an apprenticeship a great deal more strictly than we do now in regard to mining, I think it would be far better for that industry and for the prosperity of the country.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

There is one consideration I should like to bring under the notice of the Home Secretary—namely, that there has been constant complaints of the employment of unskilled labourers in mines who have been entirely unfit for the work, and their employment has resulted in frequent accidents.

MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

May I point out that the words of the Amendment, as they stand, are very wide? I think that the intention of the hon. Member for North-East Lanark (Mr. Donald Crawford) in moving the Amendment is perfectly plain; but the words he proposes are so wide that they would include all the boys and other persons who are engaged in minor operations in the mine. The Amendment would seem to lay down that no young person whatever should be employed in the mine until he has had three years' experience. I am quite sure that that cannot be the intention of the hon. Member.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM (Bristol, E.)

I think that the object of the clause now under discussion is a very good one; but I would suggest that "three years" is too long a term, and that it would be better to insert "two years." As the Amendment is now worded I am afraid it would be unworkable. I do not object to the object of it; but I think that the limit it imposes upon persons employed in the mine before they are to become coal-getters is too long.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

I rose with my hon. Friend for a similar purpose— namely, to point out that the Amendment, as it stands, would never work, because a little boy who is now employed at one of the ventilation doors is necessarily left alone for hours together, and generally begins a miner's life in that way. I do not see how it would be possible to carry out a provision that no person should be allowed to work alone until he has had three years experience of working in. the mine. As a rule, no pitman goes in and works alone.

MR. DONALD CRAWFORD

I am afraid I am suffering the penalty of not having expressed the Amendment in sufficiently precise terms; but in introducing it I stated that I did not mean it to apply to boys or persons in charge of horses, but only to men employed in getting coal in the working places. I am quite ready to accept the Amendment of the hon. Baronet, that— No person shall be allowed to work alone at a, working place as a hewer unless he is under the direct supervision of a skilled workman. If I can do anything to promote unanimity on the part of the Committee I shall be glad to do so.

SIR JOSEPH PEASE

I would propose the substitution of these words— No person shall be allowed to work alone as a hewer in a working place until he has had two years' experience of working underground.

Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, After the word "no," to insert "hewer being allowed to work alone at a working place until he has had two years' experience of working underground."—(Sir Joseph Pease.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be inserted stand part of the Amendment."

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

I hope the Committee will not accept this Amendment, especially with regard to the Proviso that he shall have had two years' experience.

THE CHAIRMAN

That point is not now before the Committee. That will form a subsequent question.

MR. WARMINGTON

I would suggest that the words "in a mine" would come in better afterwards.

Question, "That the words 'in a mine' stand part of the Amendment," put, and negatived.

Question, "That the words 'as a hewer in a working place,'" put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, to leave out "three" in order to insert "two."

Question proposed, "That 'three' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. W. ABRAHAM (Glamorgan, Rhondda)

I am of opinion that this is about the most important part of the whole Bill we have been discussing. The necessity of a periodical inspection has been urged over and over again as the only means of guarding against accident and loss of life from casualties in the working of a mine. It is, I think, of the utmost importance that no person should be allowed to be employed as a coal-getter until he has had some years' experience of such work. The training he ought to have should be of a practical character; for instance, a person who has been employed for two years in driving horses cannot be said to have had a practical training as a coal-getter.

An hon. MEMBER

Would it not be better to say "until he has had two years' experience of working under ground?"

MR. W. ABRAHAM

That would not be enough, because driving a horse would be working under ground, and so would be the building of a stall. If time permitted I could give numberless instances to prove the necessity of a practical training. About 41 per cent of the number of deaths which occur from accidents in mines arise from the want of practical knowledge. I should like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to the Report of some of Her Majesty's Inspectors on this subject. If the Committee will permit me, I will read one or two extracts. Mr. Cadman says— The principal safeguards on which miners must rely against these accidents are careful and intelligent attention to the timbering of the roof and sides, and keeping a constant watch for any change or peculiarity which may appear in the overlying strata. The responsibility of securing his working place rests with the collier, subject, of course, to the direction of the overman, and very considerable skill and knowledge of the local peculiarities of the seams worked is necessary to make a good timberman. For this reason, it is very de- sirable that young men should be practically trained in this branch of their duty, and have the benefit of the experience of old and tried colliers, who, by years of service, have become acquainted with the best ways of dealing with the dangers and the difficulties which are daily and hourly presenting themselves. These are the words of one Government Inspector, and they go far to prove the necessity of practical training. Mr. Hall, another of Her Majesty's Inspectors, speaking of timbering, says— The death roll caused by falls of roof is so serious and continuous, and so stationary without showing signs of improvement, that it would appear as if some extraordinary step is needed to bring about a favourable change, and without weighing too nicely the reasonableness of any demand in this direction. For these reasons I hold that it is essential to secure that men before they are employed as coal-getters should have had a practical training.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

I think that it is of importance to secure that experienced men who have had a practical training shall be employed in working a mine. I have all my life protested against the doctrine which has been laid down that a system of apprenticeship as applied to manual labour is a system to be condemned, for I see hon. Members opposite who belong to the learned professions, and they are quite aware that before they were able to select their profession they were required to pass through a term of probation. It is an absurdity to suppose that a similar provision should not apply to the manual professions as they may be called. An hon. Gentleman just now talked of introducing a system of protection, but in what respect does the protection provided, both in regard to the law and to the profession to which I belong, differ from the protection which should be afforded in the case of coal-mining?

THE CHAIRMAN

The present Amendment does not raise the general question, but only whether the period is to be two or three years.

MR. DILLON

I do not know what course the Representatives of labour intend to take on this occasion, but I think they are perfectly entitled to demand protection for the miners. I shall express no opinion upon the matter myself, because it is not one which I am competent to discuss; but I do think that those who represent the working miners in this House are just as much entitled to demand whatever number of years' experience they consider necessary for the protection of life as the members of the medical profession are in their profession, in the interests of the general public.

MR. FENWICK

If I am in Order, I should like to submit an Amendment which I think might have the effect of bringing this discussion to a close, so that we may be able to get on with the rest of the Bill. I would suggest that the words should be— No person be allowed to work in a mine as a coal-getter until he has had two years' experience of working in the mine under the supervision of a skilled workman. I hope the Home Secretary will accept the Amendment, because I believe it would meet the whole case.

MR. MATTHEWS

I understand the desire to be that any person who may have been employed in the mine as a horse-driver shall not be allowed to work as a coal-getter unless he has had two years' experience of coal-getting.

MR. FENWICK

Yes; that is what we want.

MR. MATTHEWS

Then I think the object will be secured by saying "two years' experience of such work."

MR. FENWICK

I think the Amendment suggested by the Home Secretary is preferable to my own, and I am quite willing to accept it.

MR. HANDEL COSSHAM

There is only one point I would venture to suggest. During the time a novice is acting under the supervision of a skilled workman, he would, of course, only receive limited wages, and it is the highest ambition of every man to get as much as he possibly can. I know that in many instances a miner refuses to marry until he attains the position of a coal-getter. It would, therefore, be desirable to make the term of probation as short as possible consistent with adequate protection to the workmen.

MR. TOMLINSON

Is it intended that the clause should be retrospective? Will it be the duty of the managers to go through the mines and ascertain whether all the men who are working are duty qualified?

MR. MATTHEWS

No.

Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed,

After Rule 37, page 34, insert: "No person not now employed as a coal-getter shall be allowed to work alone as a coal getter at the face of a working until he has had two years' experience of such work under the supervision of a skilled workman."— (Mr. Matthews).

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. TOMLINSON

I fail to see what means there are of knowing whether a man has had the necessary experience or not.

Question put, and agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN

ruled that Amendments relating to the inspection of mines, and to the testing of safety lamps, in the names of Mr. Maurice Healy and Mr. P. Stanhope, were out of Order.

On the Motion of Mr. JACOBY, Amendment made, In page 35, at end of clause by adding: "That in any case where a dispute occurs between the men and the manager of any mine respecting the carrying out of the Mines Regulation Act, and the inspector be applied to, he shall notify both parties, in order that they may appoint representatives to accompany him while prosecuting his inquiry.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

moved to add, at the end of the clause, a provision that "men and boys be allowed to ride as soon as they come to the shaft."

MR. FENWICK

As a question of Order, I wish to know whether the Amendments which stand in my name and in that of the hon. Member for Morpeth are covered by previous Amendments. My Amendment provides "that the sump hole at the bottom of the shaft shall be protected by fencing."

THE CHAIRMAN

The Amendment of the hon. Member is provided for by Rule 12, which requires the fencing of the entrances to shafts.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

My object in moving the Amendment is to provide for a case which frequently occurs in Scotland, where men and boys are detained for an undue length of time in the works. After having been at work for eight or nine hours they are frequently kept at the bottom of the pit simply in consequence of the caprice of the manager. As the engines are working all the time it would be quite easy to take up the men and boys as soon as they reach the bottom of the pit. I think the Amendment is one with which the Committee generally will agree. I believe that the Representatives of the working miners are strongly in favour of it, and I trust that the Home Secretary will accept it.

Amendment proposed, in page 35, at end of Clause, to add "That men and boys be allowed to ride as soon as they come to the shaft."—(Mr. Cunninghame Graham.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. TOMLINSON

May I remind the hon. Member that it may be necessary, in order to secure the safety of the mine, to carry on the business of it in a particular method; and if any individual is to be at liberty to stop the ordinary working at any moment great inconvenience might result, as well as danger in the working of the mine."

MR. S. WILLIAMSON (Kilmarnock, &c.)

I have an Amendment on this point which, if this Amendment is carried, may be ruled out of Order, although it is much wider in its scope. My Amendment provides that— When any workman, employed in contract work underground, in any mine to which this Act applies, shall desire to leave off work, it shall be incumbent on the mineowner or manager to arrange for his being taken to the surface without any unnecessary delay; and it shall be the duty of the mineowner to adopt a special rule as hereinafter provided for carrying this stipulation into effect.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

I do not wish to propose any Amendment that is unreasonable, or to interfere in any way with the proper working of the mine. But I deny that the adoption of this Amendment will interfere with the working of the mine. All I desire is that when the men and boys have finished the recognized hours of labour they may be allowed to go up the pit, and not be detained, while minerals are being carried up, entirely at the caprice of the manager.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the hon. Member that the Amendment does indirectly interfere with that of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. S. Williamson), which is of a much wider character.

MR. BURT

I would make an appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Lanarkshire to withdraw his Amendment, in order that the full discussion which the subject deserves may be taken when the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock is reached.

MR. CUNNINGHAME GRAHAM

Under the circumstances I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

I have now to move, in page 35, at end of Clause 50, to insert— That, in cases where gas has been found in a mine, no furnace shall be used for purposes of ventilation for the twelve months immediately following: and, when fans or other mechanical appliances are used as a means of ventilation, that two sets of machinery be kept ready for action, the one to be used in case of accident to the other. This Amendment is one of very considerable importance, and I have been asked to take charge of it. I do not think it is necessary to say much by way of explanation. The Amendment consists of two parts, the first of which deals with the ventilation of the mine in regard to matters which I do not think have been disposed of by previous Amendments; and the second part relates to the necessity, where mechanical appliances are used as a means of ventilation, of providing two sets of machinery, in the case of any accident occurring to one of them. I think it is essential to provide that, in case of accident, the machinery shall not be rendered wholly incapable of bringing the men up from the pit. In a similar way that a ship has a double steering apparatus, I propose to provide that a mine shall have a double set of ventilating machinery.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the hon. Member that the first part of the Amendment is inconsistent with Rule 2, which was agreed to yesterday.

MR. CONYBEARE

I was afraid you might hold that the question of ventilation in respect of gas has already been dealt with, and that there might possibly be an objection to the first part of the Amendment. But the same objection will not apply to the second part of it.

Amendment proposed,

In page 35, at end of Clause 50, add "When fans or other mechanical appliances are used as a means of ventilation, that two sets of machinery be kept ready for action the one to bi used in case of accident to the other."—(Mr. Conybeare.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. MATTHEWS

No doubt it h very desirable that wherever possible there should be spare machinery; but there are a large number of small mines throughout the country where it would be impossible to carry out this provision. If the matter is dealt with at al it must be dealt with by a special rule It would be impracticable to put the small mineowners to the expense of pro viding this double machinery.

MR. JOICEY

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment He seems to be under the impression that the moment an accident happens it a mine all the ventilation is cut off, and it becomes dangerous to remain in the pit. That is not the case; and after an accident has happened a fair amount o ventilation can be kept up for several hours, and there is ample time for the men to get out of the mine. It is there fore unnecessary to put the mineowners; to this additional expense.

MR. CONYBEARE

After the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PICKARD

I have now to move to add as a New Clause— That no smudge or small coal shall be left down any mine which the Inspector of the district has stated to be fiery, or dry, or dusty. My object is to prevent, if possible, an accident arising from spontaneous combustion. We think it would be much more safe if all materials of the kind were requited to be brought out of the mine, so that spontaneous combustion may be prevented. We believe that if all the coal is brought out of the mine both large and small, the danger would be considerably lessened.

Amendment proposed,

In page 35, at end, add, "That no smudge o small coal shall be left down any mine which the Inspector of the district has stated to b' fiery or dry and dusty."—(Mr. Pickard.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. MATTHEWS

I think the words of the Amendment are too wide to be inserted in a general rule. Every man who left smudge or small coal down a mine would be liable to penalties, if the Inspector of the district had declared it to be fiery or dangerous. The words of the Amendment are very indefinite, although I sympathize with the object of the hon. Member, and probably it will be possible to insert a special rule.

MR. PICKARD

In the Yorkshire mines all the coal is riddled and the dust taken away, and that is what I want to secure in all cases.

MR. MATTHEWS

I will give the matter the best consideration I can, with the view of dealing with it by a special rule.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 51 (Penalty on non-compliance with rules).

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

We have added a great number of general rules, and I am not sure that the words "unless he proves," in line 15, will be quite right enough. We will consider this matter in conjunction with what has been already done before the Report.

Question, "That this Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Special Rules.

Clause 52 (Special rules for every mine).

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

I have on the Paper an Amendment on page 35, line 27, after "mine," to insert the words— Such special rules shall specify which, if any, of the mines or seams of mines to which they apply, are dry and dusty or are fiery. I have put that Amendment on the Paper, but I find that it does not meet with the support I had hoped for. Therefore, I will not move it.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 53 to 59, inclusive, severally agreed to.

Back to