HC Deb 05 December 1911 vol 32 cc1301-3

(1) An inspector under this Act shall have power to do all or any of the following things, namely:

  1. (i.) to make such examination and inquiry as may be necessary to ascertain whether the provisions of this Act relating to matters above ground or below ground are complied with in the case of any mine:
  2. (ii.) to enter, inspect, and examine any mine, and every part thereof, at all reasonable times by day and night, but so as not to impede or obstruct the working of the mine:
  3. (iii.) to examine into and make inquiry respecting the state and condition of any mine, or any part thereof, and the ventilation of the mine, and the sufficiency of the regulations for the time being in force in the mine, and all matters and things connected with or relating to the safety of the persons employed in or about the mine or any mine contiguous there-to, 1302 or the care and treatment of the horses and other animals used in the mine, and may take with him for the last-mentioned purpose a duly qualified veterinary surgeon:
  4. (iv.) to exercise such other powers as may be necessary for carrying this Act into effect.

(2) The owner of every mine, his agents and servants, shall furnish the means required by an inspector as necessary for an entry, inspection, examination, inquiry or the exercise of his powers under this Act in relation to that mine.

(3) If any person wilfully delays an inspector in the exercise of any power under this Section, or fails to comply with the requisition of an inspector in pursuance of this Act, or to produce any certificate or document which he is required by or in pursuance of this Act to produce, that person shall be deemed to obstruct an inspector in the execution of his duties under this Act.

(4) Every person who obstructs any inspector in the execution of his duty under this Act shall be guilty of an offence against this Act.

Sir F. BANBURY

I beg to move in Subsection (1), paragraph 3, after the word "may" ["and may take with him"], to insert the words, "and in all cases where a complaint from a responsible source as to their physical condition shall."

The object of this Amendment is to insert these words to strengthen the Clause. Unless such words are put in the inspector cannot take effective action. If the House will turn to the Report they will find in paragraph 10 of the Appendix, these words, In addition to this, periodic inspection should be made at least once in every six months of every horse in every mine where there are more than twenty horses by duly qualified inspectors. The object of the Amendment is perfectly clear, and I content myself by moving it and expressing the hope that the Government will see their way to accept it.

Captain JESSEL

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. MASTERMAN

I hope the hon. Baronet will not press this Amendment, especially as I think it will be agreed that upon this point we met most of the demands in Committee. This is a case where discretion should be left to the managing inspector under the instructions of the Secretary of State. It would be a very great mistake to lay down an obligatory rule that in all cases where complaint is made from a responsible source that he should take down a veterinary surgeon. There may be many complaints where there is no necessity to take down a veterinary surgeon at all. I think the point of the hon. Baronet is fully met in the Clause as it stands.

Sir F. BANBURY

I will not press the Amendment, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will remember my kindness later on.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Colonel HICKMAN

I beg to move in Sub-section (4), after the word "who," ["every person who obstructs any inspector"], to insert the word "wilfully." The object of this Amendment is merely to make this Sub-section agree with Subsection (3), which says "if any person wilfully delays an inspector." This Subsection will then read "any person who wilfully obstructs an inspector." I think the word "wilfully," in Sub-section (4), was accidentally omitted.

Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. MASTERMAN

I think this Amendment is moved under a misapprehension. The insertion of the word "wilfully" in Sub-section (4) would have no meaning at all. In Sub-section (3) it is provided that "if any person wilfully delays an inspector" that person shall be deemed to obstruct an inspector. Then, in Sub-section (4), you give the penalty. You must have a wilful delay in order to get obstruction and Sub-section (4) provides the penalty for obstruction.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.