HC Deb 19 July 1933 vol 280 cc1953-62

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson].

11.4 p.m.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD

I desire to raise a question which is of vital importance to the mining industry, namely, the question of overtime. The Secretary for Mines told us yesterday that the case under consideration could not be dealt with effectively by question and answer. For that reason, I thought that I would give him the opportunity to-night to give his reasons for not taking legal proceedings in a case from my own division. The case concerns the Mains Colliery, Banfurlong, near Wigan, and is that of a collier and drawer who worked the day shift and the night shift of the same day. The colliery was not working the following day. On Friday of the same week this collier and drawer worked the same day shift again and also the night shift. When this was discovered it was reported to the divisional inspector, who promised immediate investigation. The result of that investigation is, as the Secretary for Mines informed us, to the astonishment of every mining Member, that he has decided against a prosecution in this case. We of the miners never dreamed that such a case was provided for in the Coal Mines Regulation Act, that it was permissible by law for a man to work two separate shifts in 24 hours. If that is the case, it seems to us that any number of men at any colliery can do the same thing, unless the Secretary for Mines thinks there were special circumstances in this case such as are provided for in that Section of the Act which allows emergency work to be done as overtime. Our information is that in this case the work is not covered by that Section of the Act. In this book which I have in my hand, which I rather think is the Bible of the Secretary for Mines during the week, provision is made for certain types of work to be done as overtime in these words: Nor shall any contravention of the foregoing provisions be deemed to take place in the case of any workman who is below ground for the purpose of rendering assistance in the event of accident,"— That does not apply in this case— or for meeting any danger or apprehended danger,"— That does not apply in this case— or for dealing with any emergency or work uncompleted through unforeseen circumstances,"— Neither does that apply to this case— which requires to be dealt with without interruption in order to avoid serious interference with ordinary work in the mine or in any district of the mine, or in the case of stallmen when engaged in the process of taking down top coal"— and so on. My contention is that there is nothing in that Regulation which applies to this particular case. If the case does not come under the emergency provisions there can be no justification for not taking proceedings. That is the sole question—does it or does it not come under emergency work? I know a similar case, and so does the Minister, which was taken to court in which a decision was given against the colliery company. I will quote the case briefly. It was the case of Archibald v. Thorneycroft, taken in 1913. It was held that the Section refers to abnormal and exceptionally serious occurrences and not to the danger which will always be present in a pit if it is not looked after. The exception is only intended for the case of men who if they left off work at the end of an eight-hour shift would leave behind them a condition of things tending to exceptional danger. Here is the part to which I wish to call special attention: It is not permissible for a repairing shift to work from 10 p.m. on Sunday to 6 a.m. on Monday and again from 3 to 11 p.m. on Monday, even though more falls might have to be dealt with on the Sunday night than on other nights; the circumstances in such a case would not be abnormal. There is a case almost exactly similar, only here we are dealing with the day shift and the night shift as against the night shift and the afternoon shift. In that case the court held there was a breach of the Regulations. We are unable to understand why the Secretary for Mines is not prepared to take a chance in court on this case, though we know that he would have to feel fairly sure, in his mind, of winning, because for the Department to take a case to court and lose is not a very wise thing to do. We want to know in what this case differs from the case that I have quoted. What is there in this case that makes it legal? We must remember that to condone this case of overtime is to encourage this type of overtime in this country. I do not think that that can be the Minister's intention.

This colliery is in a part of my constituency, and there has been more comment on this case of overtime than on any case which I have known. The Lancashire and Cheshire Miners' Federation have discussed this case from A to Z and the Minister's refusal to take legal proceedings against this colliery company has put him in this position, in the sight of the miners of Lancashire, hat he is not doing what fie ought to do. He knows from the reports which he has had—many of them, I agree, not authenticated —that overtime is rampant. The difficulty is to get a case, because the man who works overtime is generally very math afraid of giving information to his trade union. He is afraid that the result would be, as has been in many cases, victimisation. It is difficult to bring a genuine case to the Minister's attention. His colleague, the Minister of Transport, told us that we, on this side, were not prepared to bring cases to the notice of various Ministers, but here we have brought one, and we fail to understand the reason why the Minister has not taken action. Even if he has satisfied himself that there is no ground on which to prosecute in this case, will he tell us in what way the law safeguards such a case? If the law allows working of this kind, it only shows that the law needs drastically amending.

My final words are that, whatever the law does, I want the Minister to let it be known throughout the coalfields that he is strongly opposed to the working of overtime in the coal mines of this country. His refusal to take proceedings is resented by the miners of Lancashire, and the resentment is still more intense among the unemployed miners that those in work should be allowed to work two shifts in the 24 hours, and that the Minister tells us that this is legal.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. TINKER

I would like to emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend. The Secretary for Mines has from time to time told us that if we have any definite cases we must let him know about them, and that he was prepared to use his powers to prevent illegal overtime. We have constantly told our miners' agents to let us know of all cases. In the coalfields, illegal overtime is prevalent, and we are being constantly told that we are doing nothing to carry out the law. We have asked our people to watch and let us know what is happening, and we would get the Secretary for Mines to take action and try to put in order what we understood was contrary to the Coal Mines Regulations Act, 1909 We have brought forward this case, which, to my mind, is quite clear and definite, where a man has completed a shift and left the colliery, and the statutory limitation of time has not been allowed to intervene before that man is again back at work.

In this case and other similar cases, there can be no question of emergency, because emergency is something unforeseen, something that they did not know could or would happen, and therefore before the shift had been completed these men had been told to stop on, because there had been a fall. The airways were blocked, or the adit had been stopped. In this case the employers must have known about the difficulties, if there were any, and there were other men who could have filled this position and who had not worked in the previous 24 hours. There were a large number of men unemployed, and large numbers who were not working full time, who could have easily done the work and kept within the statutory limitation as to hours. I have had to deal with some of these matters, because, during the last Parliamentary Recess one of our miners' agents fell ill, and I was asked to take on the work in the mean-time—without pay, I may say. A case of this kind was brought to my notice, and I met the manager, who told me that in his opinion it was not a breach of the Coal Mines Act, but that he had the right to bring in a man if he so desired, so long as the two shifts did not happen on the same day—that, if a man had worked one shift and finished at 10 o'clock, he could be brought in at one o'clock on the following morning, because it was on another day. I had to call in the mines inspector, who told the manager that he was wrong, but there was no prosecution, but merely a warning.

This is going on throughout Lancashire, the colliery managers believing that they are immune from trouble so long as they do it in this way. I hope that the Secretary for Mines, if he wants smooth working in the mines, will help us in this matter. This provision has been put on the Statute Book for the purpose of limiting the hours of miners, but if it is to be allowed to become a dead letter, it will be of no use at all. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to clear our minds as to why he is not prosecuting. I do not think he will be able to do it, but now is his opportunity.

11.18 p.m.

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown)

I am much obliged to the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) for bringing this matter forward. He will, of course, understand that action has to be taken in the circumstances of each case which have to be considered, and I have no complaint to make of any of his statements except that about his judgment as to what was or was not emergency work. Let me give the facts, as I understand them, from that point of view. The complaint is that, on the 17th and 19th May, colliers at the named colliery were worked two shifts each in 24 hours—a morning shift, eight hours out, and a second shift—and they had 24 hours' play the following day. Exactly the same was done during the next two days, but in that case the play day was Saturday. The manager considered it necessary that they should come back to take down coal to prevent an airway on the top of the conveyor face from closing in. That was his purpose, and the purpose of the work. He considered that that was work which the management could claim was exempted under Section 1 (2) of the Act of 1908.

Mr. G,. MACDONALD

Was that the inspector's report?

Mr. BROWN

I am dealing now with the facts, and with the point of view which I have to lay before the House as the basis of my decision. It was open to the manager, if the airway would have stood, to have brought the two men back on the play days, one of which, as I have said, was a Saturday. In this way it would have been possible to avoid a technical breach of the law, if such a technical breach was committed. But I want to make it clear that I differ from the hon. Member for Ince, and am not at all certain, after a careful examination of all the facts, that there was a technical breach of the law. The management claim that the circumstances were those of apprehended danger. This, of course, means that, if their claim was right, they would be exempt under Section 1 (2) of the Act of 1908. They also claim that this job was given to these two men because the manager thought them best qualified to do this work.

Had the management kept the men at work overtime at the end of their shift, there would have been no question whatever even of a technical illegality, and in allowing them to go home and come back later the interests of the men were apparently studied. They had a rest of eight hours between the shifts and a day's rest on the following day. If the question is asked, as it was asked by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), why was it necessary to employ these two men, and could not others have done it equally well the answer is that that must, of course, be a matter of judgment for the manager. The manager thought they were the best men for the job, and it is impossible for me, and I think it is impossible for the hon. Member, to contend that he used his discretion unwisely. Undoubtedly, he was of the opinion that the two men would dig the coal off the airway, more satisfactorily and quickly than the men who were ordinarily available on the night shift. Those two men were ordinary coal-getters. The case that my hon. Friend has raised is not a parallel case because it refers to the regular necessity for dealing with falls on Sunday nights. The men in this case did not work overtime regularly but did it for this emergency. [Interruption.] The night shift workers of course, were at their work. I do not know what the practice may be in this mine but in many mines the workmen would object to repair workers getting coal at the face. Further, the two men were apparently willing to do the work and if it was illegal, they are also liable to prosecution and to a fine not exceeding 10s. for each offence It is often overlooked that illegal overtime is an offence on the part of the man as well as of the management unless he proves that, without default on his part, he was prevented from, returning to the surface owing to the means not being available. In this case that could not have arisen. Since my hon. Friend has raised the question of the feeling in Federation circles, the attitude of those who brought this complaint to the notice of the divisional inspector is definitely open to criticism, for the first complaint from them was dated 9th June, that is to say, three weeks after the incident took place

Mr. G. MACDONALD

It is a case for local investigation, which takes time. Some managers dodge. They do not readily give dates for interviews to miners' agents. It is not the fault of the Federation that there was delay.

Mr. BROWN

In the meantime one of the men concerned, as the hon. Member knows, had been dismissed on an entirely different issue. It was only after failing to get him reinstated that the complaint about overtime was raised. That is my reason for saying that I think those who raised it on 9th June, allowing for what the hon. Member says, were open to criticism, especially as now I am told the feeling in the district has been so strong. [Interruption.] The hon. Member knows a good deal about briefing and he will appreciate that briefs are of all kinds. There are briefs that are arranged in order to put a case and there are briefs that are used to get all the facts concerned. I assure the House that I have done my best to get all the facts before coming to a judgment on the matter. It is wrong for the hon. and learned Member who spends so much time upon briefs to mention briefs in order to import prejudice into a discussion of this kind. The hon. Member for Ince knows that I have expressed myself in this House as much concerned about the effect of mechanised mining upon overtime as has been shown in the various cases brought to my notice by hon. Members. It was after reviewing all the facts of the case that I came to the conclusion that it was not a case where a prosecution would lie, and I think the House will see, if it reflects on what I have said and the facts I have brought forward, that there is force behind my contention that it is not a case in which a prosecution would lie. My hon. Friend invited me to say something about the general question of over-time. I will gladly do so.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS

If there was danger apprehended in this case, it ought to have been removed at once in accordance with the regulations. There should not be any delay at all.

Mr. E. BROWN

That is the hon. Member's point of view.

Mr. WILLIAMS

No, Sir. It is a breach of the Act.

Mr. BROWN

I say again, that is the hon. Member's point of view. The issue before a prosecution is taken is whether or not there would be a case of actual illegal overtime, or whether or not there are circumstances which would make it advisable to make an exemption under Part I (2) of the Act of 1908. It is not possible to judge whether a thing is illegal really in the terms of the Act; it is the circumstances in relation to the Act that have to be judged. May I say this, because the subject of overtime will undoubtedly come up again in the House—have shown that I have given and am giving the matter most serious consideration—that mechanised mining has increased the occasions when an emergency under Part I (2) of the Act of 1908 arises. On the other hand, it enables the men frequently to finish their work before the legal shift ends. His Majesty's inspectors have been watching these matters carefully, and in the absence of general complaints—I told the House that I have had no general complaints from the Miners' Federation; the complaints have been only isolated—our information is that the overtime worked is a very small percentage of the total time worked. With few exceptions in the cases we have investigated—I am not talking of illegal overtime, but of overtime generally—it has been less than 1 per cent. of the total time worked. The House may rest assured and the hon. Member may rest assured that when there is good ground for prosecution it will be undertaken.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes after Eleven o'clock.