The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. SEXTON:—To ask the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the case of a fatal accident which occurred to a man named Richard Stringer, employed on the s.s. "Liberty Clo," Canada Dock, Liverpool, owing to a bale of cotton which was being lowered into the hatchway of the barge "Reynolds" by hooks, which slipped from the bale; and, in view of the fact that the use of hooks for such purpose is contrary to Dock Regulation 19, Sub-section (b), will he take the necessary steps to secure in future the observance of such Regulation?
§ Mr. SEXTONIf it will not inconvenience the right hon. Gentleman, may I be allowed to insert in this Question "Dock Regulation 36" instead of "Dock Regulation 19" as the former has a more direct bearing on the matter?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSWe shall see how the answer works out. There does not appear to have been any breach of the Regulations in this case. The report I have received from the factory inspector shows that the bale was being held, not by hooks, but by "dogs." I understand that this is the general practice in handling cargo of this kind, and the Conference on Dock Accidents, which sat in 1924, and in which the hon. Member took part, did not recommend any interference with it.
§ Mr. SEXTONIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that "dogs" is merely a 1426 technical term for hooks and that in this case there was a distinct breach of Regulation 36 which lays down the following conditions:
When the working space in a hold is confined to the square of a hatch, hooks shall not be made fast in the bands or fastening of bales, etc."?Is it not a fact that in this case there was no other space than the square of the hatch for the man to stand and that he had no room to get out of the way?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSKnowing the hon. Member's interest in these matters, I took special care to find out the difference between hooks and "dogs." The hook is a hook in the ordinary sense of the word and is affixed into the rope and used in dealing with certain goods, while "dogs," as the hon. Member knows, are in the nature of clasps. This accident occurred while "dogs" were in use, and no alteration in regard to the use of "dogs" was recommended by the hon. Member's own committee in 1924.
§ Mr. SEXTON rose—
§ Mr. SPEAKERI think this matter had better be discussed behind the Chair.