§ 34. Mr. STEPHEN WALSHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that several appliances exist whose patentees claim that by their use accidents involving loss of life in the pit shaft, such as those at Gedling Colliery, Nottinghamshire, at Maryport, and Burton-on-Trent, would have been prevented; whether he is aware that the use of such appliances was not made compulsory in the Coal Mines Act of 1911, because the Home Office authorities held that no satisfactory appliance then existed; and whether, in view of the frequency of such pit-cage accidents and the belief that they are preventable, he will cause an early inquiry to be made into the effectiveness of such appliances?
§ 35. Mr. SUTTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that several appliances exist whose patentees claim that by their use accidents involving loss of life in the pit-shaft, such as those at Gedling Colliery, Nottinghamshire, at Maryport, and at Burton-on-Trent, would have been prevented; whether he is aware that the use of such appliances was not made compulsory in the Coal Mines Act of 1911, because the Home Office authorities held that no satisfactory appliance then existed; and whether, in view of the frequency of such pit-cage accidents and the belief that they are preventable, he will cause an early inquiry to be made into the effectiveness of such appliances?
§ The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Brace)I presume that my hon. Friend refers to safety catches or clutches for holding a cage when the rope breaks, but it appears from the reports I have received that in none of the three cases mentioned in the question would the use of such an appliance have availed to prevent the accident. The question of safety catches was thoroughly investigated by a Committee appointed by the recent Royal Commission on Coal Mines; they reported that no appliance of this kind had been devised which would be generally reliable and effective, and I am advised by the Chief Inspector, who was a member of that Committee, that none has been brought to his notice since; but if any new appliance which appears likely to be effective is brought at any time to the notice of the Home Office, it shall be most carefully considered by the Mines Department.
§ Mr. WALSHMay I ask the hon. Gentleman whether a certain appliance has not been recently brought to his notice; if so, will he make inquiries into the effect of this appliance?
§ Mr. BRACEYes, Sir, this morning, at the Home Office, I examined, with the Assistant Chief Inspector of Mines, a certain appliance. As the result of our conference, I have requested him to go down and see the appliance in operation at the colliery where, we are informed, it is in operation.
§ Mr. WALSHMay I take it that there will not only be inquiry made into the effect of this particular appliance, but into all those that are at present on the market that claim to be equally effective?
§ Mr. BRACEI can only commit the Home Office to this one particular appliance, but in the case of anyone who introduces an appliance in which they are interested, and which they think effective, the Home Office will give the matter the most careful consideration.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESIs it not the clear duty of the Home Office to inform themselves upon the subject, rather than to wait until Members of the House are able to bring these appliances to their notice? Has not the Home Office full information in regard to all these appliances?
§ Mr. BRACEIt is because the Home Office has full information up to date that they are unable really to fix upon any particular appliance, and make a compulsory order upon the coal-owners to adopt it; but if hon. Members or anybody else know of any appliance which they think will be effective, I think we shall only be too delighted to give it our very best consideration.