HC Deb 23 November 1911 vol 31 cc1509-24

(1) Proper and separate apparatus for raising, or lowering persons to or from the surface, of such a character as may be prescribed by the regulations of the mine, shall be kept at each of the two shafts or outlets required by the foregoing provisions of this Act, and at any other shaft or outlet for the time being in use for the purpose of ingress or egress, and such apparatus, if not in actual use, shall be constantly available for use, and no person shall, except for the purposes of sinking operations or for the purpose of examining or repairing the shafts or outlets or the machinery or appliances therein, or for the purpose of accompanying animals or bulky material which cannot be raised or lowered in a cage, or where a written exemption is given by the inspector of the division, be raised or lowered otherwise than in a cage constructed in accordance with the provisions of this Section:

Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply to any outlet by which persons can walk into or out of the mine otherwise than by ladders.

(2) Where the winding apparatus ordinarily used for raising or lowering persons to or from the surface is worked by mechanical power, it shall, if the shaft is vertical, be provided with an effective automatic contrivance to prevent over winding. If a detaching hook be used in addition to such automatic contrivance it shall be cleaned and refitted every three months and annealed every six months.

(3) Guides shall be provided in the case of every working shaft, or shaft in the course of being sunk, over one hundred yards in depth, unless a written exemption is given by the inspector of the division.

(4) Keps for supporting the cage when at rest shall be provided at the surface level where mineral is usually unloaded, and shall be used when persons are entering or leaving the cage, but shall not be provided at any intermediate landings in the shaft.

The foregoing requirements as to the provision of keps shall not apply to a system of winding by means of a single rope where the cages are held by the friction of the rope on the winding sheave.

(5) Every winding rope shall be recapped at intervals of not more than six months in accordance with general regulations under this Act, and no winding rope which has been in use for more than three and a half years or which has been spliced shall be used for raising or lowering persons.

(6) Every engine used for raising or lowering persons shall be completely separated by a substantial partition from every other engine used for that purpose at the same time, and from machinery used for any purpose other than for raising or lowering persons, unless a written exemption is given by the inspector of the division.

(7) Every cage shall be provided with catches or other suitable contrivance to prevent tubs falling out, and if used for lowering or raising persons shall be adequately covered in at the two sides and at the top, and shall be provided with suitable gates and hand bars on both sides of the cage.

(8) Rods shall not be used for attaching a cage to the winding rope unless connected with the cage through the medium of an efficient spring.

(9) There shall be on the drum of every winding apparatus used for lowering or raising persons such flanges or horns, and also, if the drum is conical, such other appliances as shall effectively prevent the rope from slipping.

(10) Where the winding apparatus used for lowering or raising persons is worked by mechanical power, there shall be pro vided one or more brakes of sufficient power by themselves to hold the cage when loaded at any point in the shaft, and a proper indicator (in addition to any mark on the rope) showing to the person who works the machine, on a dial or in some sufficient manner, the position of the cage in the shaft and placed in such a position as to be easily seen by him at the same time as the marks on the rope.

If the drum is not on the crank shaft, there shall be an adequate brake on the drum shaft.

(11) No minerals, tubs, timber, or other materials, and no implements or tools other than scientific instruments, shall be raised or lowered whilst persons are being raised or lowered in the same shaft, whether in the same cage or not.

Provided that—

  1. (a) this Sub-section shall not apply in the case of men working in the shafts or in the case of men accompanying animals or other bulky materials which cannot be raised or lowered in a cage; and
  2. (b) where a shaft is divided throughout by a substantial partition each section of the shaft shall, for the purpose of the provisions of this Subsection, be deemed to be a separate shaft.

Sir A. MARKHAM

I beg to move to omit Sub-section (2), and to insert instead thereof, (2) Where the winding apparatus is worked by mechanical power it shall be provided with a detaching hook, and if the shaft is more than one hundred yards in depth shall also be provided with an effective automatic contrivance to prevent overwinding. I wish to remind the House that the Royal Commission on Mines made a definite recommendation upon this question, and they find in precise terms that a detaching hook should be provided in the case of every winding shaft. An agreement was come to under which it became only necessary to provide a winding gear and not a detaching hook. The men's representatives at the time did not fully appreciate what these winding gears meant and what their effect was. The Royal Commission recommended, "The use of detaching hooks should be made compulsory in every case. The witnesses we examined acquiesced in this recommendation." This was hardly questioned by a single witness who gave evidence, and the reason why it was struck out was on account of Scotland. The Scotch mines, with few exceptions, are not provided with detaching hooks, but practically all over the United Kingdom the overwhelming majority of the mines are provided with these hooks. It is said that if you have an overwinding gear it is not necessary to have a detaching hook. All the inspectors of mines are unanimous on this question.

It is the unanimous recommendation of the Royal Commission and of all the witnesses who gave evidence before that Commission. Innumerable accidents have taken place within the last thirty years in mines which have not been fitted with detaching hooks and thousands of lives have been saved owing to the use of these hooks. It is a very simple appliance, and costs only from £20 to £50 or £60 according to the size and it provides for safety in case a man overwinds. A short time ago there was an accident in the case of a very large shaft in the Doncaster district which was fitted with the very best engines that money could buy and it was also fitted with a detaching hook. The overwinding gear failed and the detaching hook failed as well. On the other hand, there are numerous cases where, since automatic appliances have come out preventing overwinding, the automatic appliance has failed, and the detaching hook has acted. Last year on no less than five occasions the detaching hook came into operation at the collieries with which I am associated, and, if it had not been in operation, everyone, or the majority of the men working at the bottom, would have been killed. I feel very strongly in this matter, because when a certain colliery was being sunk some thirty years ago in Derbyshire, although it was in the early days when these hooks came out, there was no hook in use, and the winding engine over-wound, and a large number of men were instantly killed and others made cripples for life. That was an experience I have never forgotten.

Time after time, where you have had detaching hooks and controllers also at work, the detaching hook has acted and saved lives. The opposition comes from Scotland, and it comes from Scotland for two reasons. First, their headgear is so low they are not able to get the hook in at the place for the hitching; secondly, their headgears are so slender that they would collapse if the load was put on owing to the sudden shock occasioned by overwinding. That is not a reason why this appliance which has saved so many lives in the past should not be made compulsory, and I trust the House and the Government will accept this Amendment, which, after all, is merely putting into the Bill the original proposal of the Government. It was defeated in Committee owing to a misapprehension on the part of the miners' representatives. I said at the time I should ask the House of Commons to reverse the decision, and the Government at that time gave us to understand they would favourably support it.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I rise to second the Amendment. This was very fully discussed in Grand Committee, and the confusion into which the Committee got will be present to the mind of those who were present. I want to press this Amendment upon the Government because it reverts to the Bill as it originally stood. I venture to say the Bill as it originally stood was better than the Clause at which we arrived in Committee. It provided for a detaching hook in all cases and for some automatic contrivance in shafts more than 100 yards deep. When the Bill left the Committee these conditions were turned about. There was to be an automatic contrivance in every case, and a detaching hook might be used in addition. I entirely agree with what the hon. Baronet has said with regard to the value of the detaching hook. I cannot understand why the Government should not have insisted on this comparatively inexpensive apparatus in every case. I hope they will accept this Amendment. It is true they have procured an automatic contrivance in every case, but that is no substitute for the detaching hook. It is not expensive. It is the unanimous recommendation of the Departmental Committee, as well as of the Royal Commission that a detaching hook should be used in every case, and they recommend the use of the automatic contrivance in addition in the deeper mines.

Mr. MASTERMAN

This was one of the questions on which in the Committee stage I intimated that I did not think we could be bound by the decision of the Committee. It was come to under some confusion and misapprehension as to what hon. Members were voting for, and I suggest, therefore, we have a right to ask the House to reconsider the decision of the Committee. This is the unanimous report of the Royal Commission and also the report of a Special Expert Committee which is endorsed by every one of the Home Office inspectors. The hon. Baronet has told us how this provision has saved persons from injury and death, but he has not told us—what is the truth—that there is a considerable peril of death and accident from overwinding. In the last five years thirty-eight men have been killed and 239 injured in accidents due to overwinding, and as there have been cases where the automatic contrivance has not proved effective against overwinding I think it would be very remiss on my part if I did not advise this House to take advantage of both these safeguards. I think there will have to be some exemptions perhaps in the case of small mines and mines which are nearly worked out and where providing the detaching hook might mean a very considerable expense, and I shall therefore ask the House, if they carry the Amendment, to give us power of exemption for particular purposes.

Mr. S. ROBERTS

May I ask the Under-Secretary how long he intends to go on to-night?

Mr. MASTERMAN

I do not want to press hon. Members at all, but I think we might go on a little longer. We might rise well before 12 o'clock.

Mr. RICHARDS

I do not support or oppose the acceptance of the Amendment. I may as well tell the Under-Secretary that it was not due to any misunderstanding or misapprehension that the Labour representatives agreed to the Clause as it stands. It is a matter of speculation and choice as to whether it is better to have an automatic contrivance at every colliery. We are told by the experts that an automatic contrivance is effective in preventing overwinding, and that all kinds of engines can be fitted with it.

Mr. LEIF JONES

Accidents have happened from overwinding where automatic contrivances have been applied.

Mr. RICHARDS

We had the choice of accepting an automatic contrivance at every colliery, or an automatic contrivance with a detaching hook at deep collieries. Overwindings are as liable to take place at collieries 100 yards deep as at collieries 300 yards deep. We prefer the Clause as it stands at present, with an automatic contrivance for every colliery, rather than that we should have an automatic contrivance with a detaching hook at the deep collieries.

Mr. W. E. HARVEY

I rise to support the Amendment. Only yesterday an accident took place in my own division, which I am told would have been prevented if the automatic contrivance with the detaching hook had been in use. An overwinding took place, and two men were killed, while four were mutilated and had to be taken to the infirmary. If this apparatus had been used the lives of these men would have been saved, at least, so I am told by the best expert evidence I can obtain. It will be a double safeguard for the lives of these men. It should be applied to each colliery. I care not what the cost would be. That does not trouble me. With me it is a question of the safety of life and limb. Yesterday we had a revelation of what overwinding means in one of our most advanced collieries. If we had had this automatic contrivance and detaching hook we might have saved these lives.

Question, "That the words of the Subsection down to the word 'vertical' stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, that the words, "(2) Where the winding apparatus is worked by mechanical power it shall be provided with a detaching hook, and if the shaft is more than one hundred yards in depth shall also be provided with an effective automatic contrivance to prevent overwinding. The provisions of this Section shall not apply to any mine which is exempted by the Secretary of State on the ground of the special circumstances of the mine," be there inserted.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

The hon. Gentleman has suggested these words in place of those on the Paper. I understand they are to cover special circumstances, such as very small mines where there is a very small number of men employed, and also mines where the life is nearly exhausted; because, of course, it would be really very unnecessary to insist, in the case of a mine with less than five years to run, that this very expensive burden should be borne. In the case of South Staffordshire a very great number of very small mines are opened and closed very rapidly, and if this expensive burden is imposed in every case, it will very seriously interfere with the industry. I only want to have a statement that these special exemptions are to include both sets of circumstances.

Mr. MASTERMAN

I indicated that that was the sort of special case which I contemplated, but every case ought to be judged on its merits. Some very small mines should be exempted, and I certainly think where a mine is nearly worked out there ought to be exemptions there, too.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I think there ought to be special inclusions and special exclusions, and if I am in order I will ask leave to move the Amendment in the name of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman).

Mr. SPEAKER

I will put it, but I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that it does the reverse of what he wishes.

Question proposed, after the words last inserted to insert the words, "The foregoing provisions of this Sub-section shall not apply to any mine in which the total number of persons employed below ground does not exceed thirty, unless the inspector of the division, by notice in writing served on the owner or agent, or the manager (if any) of the mine directs that they shall apply."

Mr. BOOTH

On a point of Order. May I ask whether on the Report stage one hon. Member can move an Amendment standing in the name of another hon. Member?

Mr. SPEAKER

Certainly, he can move it in his own name, or he can hand in his Amendment in manuscript.

Sir C. CORY

I had given notice of an Amendment to the Sub-section which has been struck out. Can I move it as an Amendment to the new Sub-section which has taken the place of the other one?

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member's Amendment was disposed of by the striking out of Sub-section (2).

Mr. MASTERMAN

There are some mines with under thirty persons where it would not be desirable to insist on this provision. In general we intend to make this one of the particular matters to be left to the discretion of the Secretary of State.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I understand it is intended by the Home Office to exempt small mines where there are less than thirty people. If that is stated by the Under-Secretary I shall not press the Amendment.

Mr. MASTERMAN

We do not withdraw from the Amendment on the Paper. We only include it in the general exceptions.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I beg to move after the word "winding" to insert the words, "The detaching hook shall be cleaned and refitted every three months and annealed every six months."

Mr. SPEAKER

The House unanimously decided to strike that out.

Mr. LEIF JONES

I am not proposing to put in the words that are there now.

Mr. SPEAKER

May I remind the hon. Member that the last words inserted were, "The provisions of this Sub-section shall not apply to any mine which is exempted by the Secretary of State on account of the special circumstances of the mine."

Mr. LEIF JONES

I submit on a point of Order—

Sir C. CORY

I rise to a point of Order—

Mr. SPEAKER

If the hon. Member wishes to move an Amendment, the least he can do is to put it on paper so that I can see it. He has agreed to strike out Sub-section (2). I understand that he wants to add something to the new Subsection. Let him put the precise words on paper, and bring them up.

Mr. LEIF JONES

The House, by inadvertence, struck out the words at the end of Sub-section (2), and I propose to add these words, "The detaching hook shall be cleaned and refitted every three months and annealed every six months." Those are not the same words.

Mr. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is playing with the House. The House has struck those words out. The hon. Member cannot move to take them in again.

Mr. PARKES

I believe that the intention of the House was to retain those particular words, which are very important.

Mr. SPEAKER

The House has struck out Sub-section (2) and we cannot go back on it.

Colonel HICKMAN

The Amendment of the hon. Baronet opposite is a most important one. We should have some provision of this sort. We have got into such a muddle through the manuscript Amendments—

Mr. SPEAKER

I say again that if the hon. Member will put his Amendment on a piece of paper and let me see it I will see whether it reads.

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

I think that this would be the place for my Amendment as a new Sub-section. As it stands on the Paper I propose to put in after the word "overwinding"—

Sir C. CORY

I rise to a point of Order. I understand that if the hon. Member proceeds with his Amendment I am cut out. I am now prepared to put down my Amendment, "The provisions of this Sub-section (2) shall not apply for three years from the coming into operation of this Act, or until such further time as the Secretary of State may prescribe in any case where he is satisfied that it has not been practicable to provide the same."

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

In the event of the Amendment I am now submitting being carried, the hon. Baronet will want the same exemption to that. Therefore the proper place for his Amendment is after the one I am moving is disposed of. I beg to move, in the new Sub-section, after the word "over-winding," to insert the word's "an apparatus approved by the Secretary of State to prevent the cage from falling in cases where the winding rope breaks or slips the drum."

Mr. SPEAKER

What the hon. Member moves is a new Sub-section, and it will not be in order. The proviso proposed by the hon. Member for St. Ives applies to the Sub-section we are now discussing.

Sir C. CORY

I beg to move to add at the end of the Sub-section the words, "The provisions of this Sub-section shall not apply within three years from the coming into operation of this Act, or such further time as the Secretary of State may prescribe in any case where he is satisfied that it has not been practicable to provide the same."

I think it will be generally acknowledged that immediately the Act comes into operation there will be a rush into the market for new apparatus. People will set their brains to work to see how they can improve the appliances which are necessary, and it seems desirable that some time should be allowed those who seek to make provision of the required apparatus. The report of the Royal Commission recommends that a reasonable time should be allowed to colliery owners to carry these requirements into effect. The Under-Secretary promised that a Clause should be inserted in order to give time for such work as will be rendered necessary, and I suggest that three years is a reasonable time in which to supply these contrivances.

Colonel HICKMAN

I beg to second the Amendment. I agree with what the hon. Baronet has said as to the necessity for allowing time for this work. I am informed by the Mining Association of Great Britain that in many cases seven years will be required, and therefore three years seems a small period to ask for.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Mr. Hunter)

The proposal of the hon. Baronet would establish a minimum period of years. That period, in connection with the introduction of provisions for the safety in the mines, might in many cases be excessive. Under the Amendment of the hon. Member for Mansfield, the matter is left to the discretion of the Secretary of State, and it becomes administrative in his hands; he considers the special circumstances of each mine. In one mine it might be advisable that the alteration should be made in a shorter period than in the case of another mine. We think there should not be a hard-and-fast line drawn.

Sir C. CORY

I do not say at least three years, but before three years, which is not hard and fast.

Mr. HUNTER

The whole matter is entirely governed by the proviso of the Government, and it is entirely for them to say, dealing with each particular case on its own merits.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I do not think the statement of the Government is quite correct. The special provision is as to particular circumstances under which certain mines may be exempted. It has got nothing to do with the period before which this change is to take place. I think the proposition made by the hon. Baronet is most reasonable, that these extensive changes should not be enforced within a certain time. After all, you should meet people who are controlling big interests in a fair way. They are willing to accept what is a very big change in the provision of automatic winding apparatus and safety rope, and I think you ought to give them time. I cannot agree with the Solicitor-General that the general provision applies to the case of fixing this new apparatus. I think there was general agreement when my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Colonel Hickman) was speaking, as hon. Members shouted "agreed." [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] They did, and my hon. and gallant Friend discontinued his speech in consequence. I hope the Government will give way upon the question.

Mr. S. ROBERTS

May I remind the House that in Grand Committee the Under-Secretary distinctly said, "These things are new apparatus; I only know of two effective ones, and time must be given both for the manufacturers of those apparatus and the colliery owners to get them properly in working order." I do not know that three years is absolutely essential, but there ought to be some time fixed. It is not a satisfactory arrangement to leave it to the Government to deal with each case. People ought to know when they have got to do it. I appeal to the Under-Secretary to agree to the Amendment or some modification.

Mr. MASTERMAN

I will promise that in one or other structural alterations which we are making in the Bill we will put in an Amendment in a comparatively short time, and that such time may be extended at the discretion of the Secretary of State. I do not thing that makes any difference in practice to what my hon. and learned Friend said, and if it would meet the convenience of hon. Gentlemen I will promise that shall be done in another place.

Sir C. CORY

I am willing to withdraw after the undertaking of the Home Secretary.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In Sub-section (3) leave out the word "or" ["or shaft"], and insert instead thereof the words "over fifty yards in depth, and in the case of every."

In Sub-section (4) leave out the words "and shall be used when persons are entering or leaving the cage."—[Mr. Master-man.]

At end of Sub-section (4) insert the words, "The keps provided at the surface level, and also the keps, if any, provided at the bottom of the shaft, shall be used when persons are entering or leaving the cage."—[Mr. Masterman.]

Mr. KEIR HARDIE

I beg to move, after the words last added, to insert the words, "Apparatus approved by the Secretary of State to prevent the cage from falling in cases where the winding rope breaks or slips the drum, shall be provided in each mine."

I know that this is a matter upon which the Royal Commission were far from being agreed. Everybody agrees as to the necessity for some such apparatus, but up to the present nothing has been found entirely satisfactory. But the same thing is true to some degree of detached hooks, and my point is that if the provision of some form of apparatus were made obligatory it would stimulate invention and secure some suitable contrivance all the sooner. I do not desire that the safety of the men should depend upon something to keep the cage from falling when the rope breaks, but that, when everything has been done to keep the rope safe, if it does break the colliers in the cage shall have one more chance of escape. The need is shown in the Mine Inspector's Report, according to which the deaths from overwinding in 1910 were twelve. The position is being materially improved by this Clause, but I want the House to go a step further, and make it as safe as legislation can make it. If it is possible to get a safety appliance to keep a cage loaded with six or ten tons of coal from going down there is no insuperable difficulty in the way of stopping a cage containing men.

Sir CHARLES HENRY

I beg to Second the Amendment. There was an accident about a year ago in the Constituency that I represent, and it might have been obviated had some such contrivance as has been suggested been in existence. The Home Office might be on the look out for something of the kind.

Mr. MASTERMAN

It is obvious that with the position taken up by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment everyone will have sympathy. These accidents are some of the most horrible in the mine. The objection is that not only has no apparatus to meet the case been invented, but all the advice of the experts I can get suggests that it would be more dangerous than otherwise. In that the hon. Baronet the Member for Mansfield will bear me out. That was the declaration of the Royal Commission. That is also the result of very careful investigation by the inspectors at the Home Office. When we were making up this Bill the first thing I asked was, "Is there not some apparatus: some sort of automatic clutch, that if the rope breaks, would catch the cage?" The experts were all perfectly convinced that the use of such apparatus would be more dangerous than the present state of things. It would probably come into use inopportunely, when the cage was ascending or descending. If in the course of the progress of scientific invention any such apparatus comes out, if I still have the honour to be at the Home Office, I shall be the first to propose as Amendment of this Act.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Colonel HICKMAN

I beg to move, in Sub-section (5), after the word "in" ["has been in use"] to insert the word "constant."

In the Sub-section at present a rope at all in use would have to be scrapped at the end of 3½ years. I am quite sure it was never meant that unused reserve ropes should be scrapped after 3½ years.

Mr. BAIRD

I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. HUNTER

The introduction of the word "constant" would give rise to a considerable amount of difficulty in the application of this Clause. It is perfectly clear where the reference is first in the Clause that it is to ropes in use. That does not mean reserve ropes. It means ropes that have actually been used. If the adjective suggested were put in it would leave it in the power of the owner to say, "The rope has not been used for a day or a week," and so he might be able to avoid this provision. It is not intended that he should have that power.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

I really think some word is necessary here. It is not merely the case of a reserve rope that is never used. There may be a reserve rope that is used very occasionally. If that is the case, if the Bill stands as it is now, that rope would have to be scrapped in three and a half years when it had only been used on very few occasions. I quite agree that the word "constant" may not be fair, but I suggest the word "regular" would be; it would be less objectionable than "constant."

Sir A. MARKHAM

May I point out that a rope in constant use has a much longer life than a rope only used occasionally.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: In Sub-section (7) leave out the words "adequately covered in at the two sides and at the top" and insert thereof the words "covered in completely at the top and closed in at the two sides in a sufficient manner to prevent persons or things from projecting beyond the sides."

After the word "gates" ["with suitable gates and"] insert the words "or other rigid fences."

Leave out the words "hand bars on both sides of" and insert instead thereof the words "with a rigid hand bar fixed in a position where it can be easily reached by all persons in."—[Mr. Masterman.]

Mr. McKENNA

I beg to move "That the Debate be now Adjourned."

Mr. BOOTH

On that question may I ask whether we shall be asked to sit late to-morrow. It is a matter of some importance to some of us engaged in this very business.

Mr. McKENNA

We hope we shall not have to sit very late to-morrow, but we shall endeavour to get the Bill, and I imagine we shall be able to do so in a reasonable time.

Viscount WOLMER

What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by a reasonable time?

Mr. McKENNA

The Noble Lord knows it is impossible to give any particular hour, because those who might wish to protract the proceedings would find it extremely easy to go on up to that hour. We have a reasonable hope that we may be able to finish to-morrow evening about five or six o'clock.

Sir A. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

Surely there ought to be some limit. No one wants to be kept in the House late on a Friday night. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to go on up to eleven o'clock?

Mr. McKENNA

Oh, no; there is no intention of going on up to any such late hour as that. I hope by five or six, or seven o'clock at latest, we shall conclude the Debate to-morrow evening.

Debate adjourned accordingly.

Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 24th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."