HC Deb 05 December 1911 vol 32 cc1305-9

(1) Where proceedings are taken under this Act against the owner or agent of a mine in respect of an offence under this Act for which the owner, agent, or manager or each of them is liable under this Act, the owner or agent shall not be liable to any penalty if he proves to the satisfaction of the Court—

  1. (a) that he was not in the habit of taking, and did not in respect of the matters in question take any part in the management of the mine; and
  2. (b) that he had made all the financial and other provision necessary to enable the manager to carry out his duties.

(2) Save as above provided, it shall not be a defence in any proceedings brought against the owner or agent of a mine under this Act in respect of such an offence as aforesaid that a manager of the mine has been appointed in accordance with this Act.

(3) Nothing in this Act shall render the owner, agent, or manager of a mine liable to a penalty in respect of any contravention of or non-compliance with the provisions of this Act, if he proves that the contravention or non-compliance was due to causes over which he had no control and against the happening of which it was impracticable for him to make provision.

(4) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as preventing proceedings being instituted, in the first instance, against the manager for any offence for which the manager of the mine is liable under this Act.

(5) No prosecution shall be instituted against the owner, agent, manager, or under-manager of a mine for any offence under this Act, not committed personally by such owner, agent, manager, or under-manager, which can be prosecuted before a court of summary jurisdiction, except by an inspector or with the consent in writing of the Secretary of State; and in the case of any offence of which the owner, agent, manager, or under-manager of a mine is not guilty if he proves that he had taken all reasonable means to prevent the commission thereof, an inspector shall not institute any prosecution against such owner, agent, manager, or under-manager, if satisfied that he had taken such reasonable means as aforesaid.

(6) A prosecution shall not be instituted against a coroner for any offence under this Act except with the consent in writing of the Secretary of State.

(7) If a boy or girl was employed on the representation of his or her parent or guardian that he or she was of an age at which his or her employment would not be in contravention of this Act, and under the belief in good faith that he or she was of that age, or if a person has been employed in any capacity or in any manner on his representation that he fulfilled the conditions as to age, experience, and otherwise necessary for such employment, and under the belief in good faith that such representation was true, the owner, agent, or manager of the mine and employer shall be exempted from any penalty, and the parent or guardian or the person making such representation, as the case may be, shall in respect of the misrepresentation, be guilty of an offence against this Act.

(8) The owner of a mine shall not be liable to an action for damages as for breach of statutory duty in respect of any contravention of or non-compliance with any of the provisions of this Act if, under the provisions of this Act, he is not liable to any penalty in respect of that contravention or non-compliance.

Amendment made: After Sub-section (b), add the following Sub-section, (c) that the offence was committed without his knowledge, consent, or connivance.—[Mr. Masterman.]

Mr. ADAMSON

I beg leave to move the omission of Sub-section (8).

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir John Simon)

My hon. Friend has moved to omit Sub-section (8), and I think it will be convenient if I explain at this stage what that Sub-section is intended to effect, and why it is we feel that some such provision should exist in this Bill. If hon. Members will look at the Order Paper they will see that it is proposed slightly to vary the words. Let me first say what the point is. The previous law, when it laid down certain statutory duties, introduced the list of those duties by words saying that certain rules should be observed "so far as is reasonably practicable." That was the standard of duty laid down by the Act of 1877. The House is probably aware that, in addition to proceedings being taken before a magistrate for penalties for a breach of a Statute, it is sometimes possible to make a claim, on behalf of the man injured or on behalf of the relatives if the man is killed, in the Common Law Courts for a breach of statutory duty. But that is not the same thing as a claim for negligence, and it simply means that in certain circumstances you may recover damages by proving them and showing that the employers have failed to observe the statutory duty and the man has suffered damages in consequence.

The House will see that if we express the duty, not as a duty to be carried out under these rules, such as is reasonably practicable, but as an absolute duty, this claim for damages might be very greatly enlarged. Take a particular instance. One of the first rules under the old law is as to ventilation of a mine, and as long as it is shown that the defendant has not only failed to ventilate a mine, but failed so far as is reasonably practicable, it is quite right he should be held responsible for damages which ensue to persons working in the mine. If you say that his liability is an absolute liability, and that the duty which you put upon him is an absolute liability, it is plain that we must be careful to limit his responsibility to such breaches if he has not done what is reasonably practicable. I say to the hon-Member who moved this Amendment the object we have in view is to secure in respect of this matter that the law shall remain exactly as it is. We want to secure that the law shall not be enlarged neither in the interests of the plaintiffs nor limited in the interests of the defendants by the slightest fraction. The amended words we are proposing to the best of my belief secured that result, whereas if we omitted this Sub-section the result would be an entirely new liability, which would be thrown upon the owners. I think my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment, as well as other hon. Members, do not really desire to see any new liability of this kind imposed by this Bill. May I call attention to the way in which it is proposed this Clause should run. The Order Paper contains two Amendments, but we do not propose to move the first Amendment, which proposes to insert the words "by him." With our Amendment the Sub-section will read, (8) The owner of a mine shall not be liable to an action for damages as for breach of statutory duty in respect of any contravention of or non-compliance with any of the provisions of this Act, if it is shown that it was not reasonably practicable to avoid or prevent the breach. I can assure the House, after studying this point carefully, that as regards actions for breach of statutory duties, the only thing that remains is the proposal on the Paper. My hon. Friend has put on the Paper a proposal to insert after the word "breach" the words "by him." I desire, to be perfectly frank about this point, and I wish to say that I do not think it makes the slightest difference to the extent of the liability whether those words are in or not. The only circumstances in which an owner could be responsible for damages would be if you could show that there had been a breach of duty for which he was in some way responsible. That is the meaning of a breach of duty by him. It has been pointed out to me, not only from one side of the House, because it has been brought to my notice by those who have studied this question from the owner's point of view as well as that of the miners, that the insertion of those words is open to misunderstanding.

One contention is that the words would strengthen the Clause against the interests of the owners, and another view is that it would strengthen it in his favour, and we do not desire to do either. For this reason I do not propose to move the insertion of the words quoted by him. I do propose, however, to move the other words, which, I believe, will exactly place the law in the position in which it was before. I think that is plain to the House, and I hope my hon. Friend, in view of what I have said, and in view of the great care which has been taken with this subject, will agree that the proper course is not to enlarge the common law liability of the owners by throwing upon them a responsibility to pay damages, although everything that is reasonably practicable has been done. That would be throwing an entirely new liability upon him, and that is not our object. I am satisfied that we are not cutting down his liability, and upon that understanding I hope my hon. Friend will withdraw his Amendment.

Mr. ADAMSON

I am satisfied with the explanation which has been given by the Solicitor-General, and I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Further Amendment made: In Sub-section (8), leave out the words "under the provisions of this Act, he is not liable to any penalties in respect of that contravention or non-compliance," and insert insert instead thereof the words, "It is shown that it was not reasonably practicable to avoid or prevent the breach."—[Mr. Masterman.]