HC Deb 26 May 1939 vol 347 cc2760-70

2.58 p.m.

Mr. Tinker

I desire to raise a matter which is of considerable interest to the people who have sent us here. It is a matter dealing with the mining industry, and affects the lives of 750,000 men, who are looking forward for something to be done in the matter. Recently there have been changes in the method of getting coal. We are now getting long-wall face workings, and it is a system which is affecting the safety of the workers. This system which has been adopted in 59 per cent. of the coal mines is a system of hewing coal by machinery. In Lancashire 68 per cent. of the coal is mined by machinery, and because of that we are getting extended long-wall face workings, different from the old system which was known as the board and pillar system. Under the old system there was an outlet for every five or ten yards of face. Under the new system of an extended working face, you get 100, 200 and sometimes 300 yards of face, and the only outlet the men have by law is one at each end of the face. Some mine owners recognising the danger are wise and good enough to provide more outlets than the one at each end of the face, but there are other colliery owners whose object is to get more coal who are regardless of the safety of the men and just stick to the legal position and provide only two outlets.

The miners in Lancashire recently held a conference and carried a resolution asking the Secretary of Mines and the coal owners to pay more attention to this matter. In one place which I have in mind, the colliery owners, with the object of extending the working face without providing sufficient outlets, have introduced what is known as the metal chock system for supporting the roof. The position is dangerous to the workmen. I have a letter from the secretary of one of the miners' branches in which he says: On number five face at the Calder Pit the firm have introduced some new metal chocks and have done away with the boards. The face it about 80 yards long with boards at the top end and one at the bottom, no boards or opening in between, so that in the event of the weighting of the roof there is no way out. The men say they are afraid of working in the face under these conditions. Afternoon and night committee men say the conditions are awful and dangerous to the lives of the workmen. The thickness of this seam is about two feet four inches, and you can visualise what it means for men to be working on their knees if there is a weighting of the roof and they have to go to the extreme point of this 80 yards working face. They cannot give satisfactory work under those conditions. Prior to the introduction of these metal chocks there were other out- lets. Mine owners recognised that on this system they could not be affected unless the board and pillar system was done away with and consequently the mine owners have done away with it. The mine workers then called a conference and determined not to work unless the management did something better. The result, owing to the industrial action taken, is that the employers of this particular colliery have decided to have another opening in the middle of the coal face; they have recognised the feelings of the men and desire to do something better. But that is only one colliery. There are hundreds of other collieries in the same position, and we ask whether it is right that they should be allowed to go on without the mine inspectors doing something to relieve the tension. Mine owners as a rule do not regard—I am speaking strongly—the safety of the workmen as the first consideration. It is a question of output and consequently, because of the feeling in this particular locality the miners instructed me to put a Question in the House to the Secretary for Mines, which I did on 18th April. I stated the position in the Question and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who was then Secretary for Mines, gave a reply containing the following matter.

In his reply, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman stated:— On the first point I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on 28th March. The second point was dealt with in evidence to the Royal Commission on Safety, but the Commission made no recommendation in the matter, and I am advised that, in general, the limitation of the number of gate-ways on long-wall faces tends to ensure greater safety from falls of ground, since a large proportion of the accidents from falls of roof at the face occur at and about gate-ends."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th April, 1939; col. 143, Vol. 346.] The former Secretary for Mines always paid close attention to the mineworkers, but in this matter, it is evident, from the Reply, that he was not conversant with the actual working conditions. The outlets of which I am speaking are not the recognised gateways mentioned in the Reply. Those gateways are provided for the purpose of getting the coal away from the face where the waggons run up to the coalface, and in preparation for them, the roof is ripped in many cases up to eight or ten feet high. There is a wide space, and often such gateways are from 15 to 18 feet wide. I admit that where there are these large gateways, greater danger can ensue. However, the outlets of which I am speaking are not those big gateways, but ordinary outlets some five feet high, and we do not want them to be more than six feet wide. There is a very limited danger in the preparation of such outlets. It is evident from the reply that was given that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was not conversant with the matter, and if he got the information from the Mines Inspectors, then I say that they were not giving him the right information, and had not examined the question as they ought to have done, because they know as well as I do, for they are practical men, that these openings on the coalface are not openings for gates. The narrow opening is only sufficiently wide and high to allow the men to make their way out should a fall take place or should there be signs of danger. In his reply, the Secretary for Mines had not a real grasp of the situation, and was using the old story about the added danger caused by gateways in order to prevent greater safety for the workmen.

In the reply, there was also a reference to the fact that the Royal Commission did not make any recommendation. I agree that that is so, but it is not because we did not try to get them to make a recommendation. The Miners' Federation of Great Britain submitted evidence on the matter. They recognise the danger. They said in their evidence that the extended length of coalface on the conveyor system makes it necessary that escape roads should be provided at fixed intervals, so that in the event of falls the workmen are not trapped within the conveyor case; and they suggested that 60 yards should be the maximum length of face between the escape roads. In the questions that followed, it was agreed by the questioner, the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), and the man who was giving the evidence that where there were thin seams, it could be less than six yards. The Commission did not make any recommendation on that matter. I am at a loss to understand why they did not do so, and the only excuse I can give is that, having so much material to deal with, they overlooked the question of these escape roads.

I want to say that when we, as practical miners who know the needs of the men and the dangers of the mines, see that something is not dealt with as it ought to be, we cannot leave the matter and allow the coalowners to take advantage of the position. I believe that because of the fact that no recommendation was made in the Report of the Royal Commission, the coalowners are now following the easy way of gradually doing away with openings along the coalface. Those who know the mining industry know the grave peril that can result from that. I go into the mining districts every weekend, and I get into conversation with, and make inquiries of, men who are working on the face, and I realise the danger they are encountering. In mine-working one way of getting the best out of the men is to give them confidence that danger is being avoided as much as possible. I ask hon. Members to imagine a man working all the time in apprehension of danger knowing that if there is a fall he is 50 or 60 or 100 yards away from the nearest outlet. All the time that he is slogging away and working hard his mind is bound to be occupied by that danger and the necessity of being ready to get away should a fall occur. He may be working in a seam where there is only a space of 2 feet 6 inches and he may have to run or rather crawl 100 yards to the nearest outlet. It is easy to understand his condition of mind. On the other hand, if he knows that there is an outlet within 20 or 30 yards he will do his work with greater confidence.

The Secretary for Mines is a young man and eager to do his best for the industry. He is going round the mines and examining conditions for himself. I ask him to watch this point and to ascertain whether there is not ground for the statement I have made. I would also say, through him, to the inspectors that they ought to pay closer attention to this matter than has apparently been paid to it in the past. I ask them to consider the change in the system of working. Machine mining has come to stay. I admit that, and I recognise its value. But machine mining brings added dangers, and these added dangers ought to be guarded against. One arises from the incessant noise and another from the extended face work, and I suggest that sufficient attention has not been paid to all the risks involved in machine mining.

I have waited since 18th April for aft opportunity to raise this question. When an hon. Member gives notice that he intends to raise a question on the Adjournment it is not always easy for him to find an opportunity of doing so. I have sat here night after night trying to arrange with the Secretary for Mines for an opportunity of raising this question. But when it has been convenient to do so, the time has not been available and so, day after day and week after week have gone by, and I have been unable to bring this matter to the attention of the House. I am glad to have had the opportunity to-day of presenting this very serious case to the Secretary for Mines, and I hope he will give it his consideration.

3.14 p.m.

The Secretary for Mines (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd)

It is true that it is now some time since the hon. Gentleman first gave notice of his intention to raise this question, and I wish to thank him for his courtesy in postponing it a few days ago, in order to allow me to fulfil an outside engagement. From my point of view, there has been a certain advantage in the fact that for various reasons this discussion has been delayed because that has given me the opportunity of seeing, in actual practice, something of the conditions in the coal mines. When I visited South Wales recently I had the advantage of being accompanied in the eastern part of the coalfield, by the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Jenkins) and at the Blaenavon Colliery we visited a seam of a thickness of 2 feet 3 inches. The hon. Member and I proceeded from the gate head about 40 or 50 yards, along the conveyor face, to the point where the miners were actually at work on the face. It was at that moment that the hon. Member for Pontypool took occasion to point out the feelings of the men on this particular matter. I am grateful to him for doing so, and it was very fortunate for me that he was with me then, because otherwise I might not have had the opportunity of having the matter put to me at the actual part of the coal face where the men were working. I need hardly tell hon. Members who know what mining conditions are like in a thin seam, but a person who has practically never been down a mine before, finding himself in a seam two feet three inches thick and then being told about the feelings of the men with regard to the means of egress is not likely to under-estimate the difficulties at that moment; and, indeed, I think I do appreciate those feelings. I will return to the point, however, a little later.

I would like to make one observation now about a point which the hon. Member mentioned, and which was mentioned by my predecessor, in regard to the report of the Royal Commission. It is true that the Royal Commission had this subject brought to their notice by the Mine-workers' Federation and that in the end they did not make a recommendation on it. I put it to the House that a certain significance must be attached to the fact that after hearing that authoritative evidence the Royal Commission did not make a recommendation. We have to bear in mind that the Royal Commission, by the terms of their appointment, were specifically instructed to direct their minds to the changes in methods of work that were being brought about in the industry by modern mining developments, and particularly by machine mining, and I do not think we should be right to assume that they rather overlooked the importance of this matter. I think that some significance must be attached to the fact that they did not make a recommendation. I do not want to push that point too far, but I think it means that there were certain doubts in their minds, and I believe there are certain doubts in regard to this subject in the minds of many practical men in the industry. I do not think the hon. Member would disagree with me when I say that it is an industry in which, owing to the complicated technical questions which arise, extraordinary differences and varieties of opinion are held, even by men who know the subject very well.

If I may deal with the subject more in detail, it is to be divided, I think, into two heads, first of all, from the technical aspect and then more from the psychological point of view. From the technical aspect—and I know that hon. Members will appreciate that I approach this question with a good deal of diffidence—I want to put the view that I have received from my very competent advisers. First of all, what is the extent of the danger that is apprehended by the men? Let us remember right at the beginning that anything brought forward on behalf of the men by their trade unions or by hon. Members representing them in this House regarding apprehensions of danger must always be very carefully considered by the authorities in charge. Fears have been expressed, but I am informed by my Department that very few accidents have in fact, occurred as a result of there not being more means of egress from the coal face than the two gate heads at the terminal points. Indeed, the House will appreciate that this is a rather extreme statement, and I shall be interested to know whether anyone can controvert it, but we do not know at the present time of any single accident which has in fact occurred as a result of there not being more than the two roads.

I shall be interested to hear of any actual examples, although I recognise that the fact that there has not been a particular type of accident is not a conclusive argument, because an accident may take place in future and what we want to do is to prevent accidents taking place. Nevertheless, there remains the fact that in mining you can broadly assess the dangers by the frequency of the accidents experienced in the past. I would like to suggest, therefore, that as we have no definite information of a large number of accidents from this cause, we must approach the question with a certain degree of caution so that we are not led to do anything by way of a remedy to allay the apprehensions that exist in certain quarters which may, in fact, cause a certain number of accidents to take place, because if we did that we should be jumping from the frying pan into the fire. The position would be altogether different if it could be shown that there had been a considerable number of accidents from this cause.

May I examine from that point of view the remedy which is proposed, namely, additional roads to the coal face in addition to the two terminal roads. Hon. Members are much more familiar than I am with the immensely complicated technique of the problem of roof control, but I believe it to be a statement that would not be controverted that the less you break the roof the less danger you are likely to experience, and that any ripping or breaking of the roof is to a certain extent, and in proportion to the amount you break into it, a potential cause of danger.

I appreciate the point about smaller roads which the hon. Gentleman suggested. Having taken advice on the subject, I say that the most important point is the actual breaking of the roof. The more you break the roof the more potential danger you are likely to bring about. In a very thin seam you would be bound to break the roof in order to make any effective roads, but even in five-foot or six-foot seams, although perhaps the road at the coal face would be all right, it would be necessary as you proceeded backwards with the gradual closing in of the road that takes place, after a time to engage on ripping operations further back on that road, even if you started off with a much smaller road than the dimensions of the ordinary main road. Therefore, you cannot really deal with the danger by going in for smaller roads than the main roads.

I will deal now with the actual history of the accident danger arising from the roads. I do not want to go into minor points such as the fact that this ripping may in certain circumstances necessitate shot-firing, which has always an element of risk, or the fact that the ripping lip is a potential lurking place for firedamp. They are not so important as the main point that at the coal face, where the majority of accidents from falls of roof occur, there is a very heavy concentration of those accidents in the neighbourhood of the gatehead. It is the fact that in several cases in the various districts—Yorkshire, for example, in some years, and the northern division in another year—40 per cent. of the accidents from falls of ground at the coal face were at the roadheads or within 10 yards of the road-heads, while the same tendency has been observed in the north-western division. I know it is the fact that more men are often in the vicinity of gateheads than on the rest of the coal face, but even when allowance is made for that it does not, in the opinion of my advisers, completely account for this very high proportion of accidents in the vicinity of the gateheads. Indeed, an investigation was made not so long ago into the accidents in the vicinity of the dummy roads, and there was found to be a considerably higher proportion of accidents in the vicinity of the dummy roads as compared with the face as a whole, even though there is not anything like the extra concentration of men that there is at the actual gateheads.

Therefore, it does seem to be established in practice, as one would expect from the theory of roof control, that there is a definite danger arising from the construction of extra roads to the face. That does put one in a difficult position in considering this question, because, on the one hand, we have no actual proof in the accident records of any accidents which are due to not having these extra roads to the face, and on the other hand we have definite proof by experience that every road to the face is a potential and indeed an actual source of danger. I know that the House would not wish that simply from not having gone into the matter deeply enough we should adopt a solution of the problem which might, in fact, actually increase the danger to the men in the mine when looking at the matter from a broad point of view and taking everything into account.

That, so far as my present information goes, is the technical aspect of the matter. On the other hand, we must give due weight to the psychological question, and that, as I have said, is a matter which I can extremely well understand. Lying upon my stomach with the hon. Member for Pontypool in a 2 ft. 3 in. seam, with hundreds of feet of earth above me, in what one may describe as a thin sandwich of space—the roof being only a few inches above my head—a novice like myself certainly does begin to ask what is going to happen if there is some weighting of the roof. Certainly one could do no more than crawl away, and perhaps hardly crawl, because it would mean merely moving forward on one's stomach, and so it would not be possible to get away very quickly. Although it is obviously unwise, upon the impressions of a novice to generalise on what are the feelings of an experienced miner, I can understand the feelings he might have, particularly if he were a miner who had not been used to working on the long wall system in thin seams, if the roof begins to weight, and as the miner says, "the props begin to talk," and there is creaking in the roof. It is the fact, as the hon. Member said, that certain collieries have taken into account the feelings of the men and have done something to meet their views. I do not know whether in this particular case the men have approached the colliery management.

Mr. Tinker

Yes, they did approach the colliery manager, but he refused to do what they wanted. They then threatened to stop the pit, but he said that rather than that should happen he would meet their wishes.

Mr. Lloyd

That was perhaps what you might call the give-and-take of negotiation with which we are familiar, but I rather understood from the hon. Gentleman that there were still cases in which the issue was in doubt. If that is so, and the men have not approached the colliery management, I would like to suggest that they should do so, bearing in mind the various technical considerations that I have mentioned and which vary in importance in different districts and different mines. The psychological factor varies in importance also in different mines. In a pit with a strong sandstone roof there would not be the same objection to extra ripping that there might be in certain other conditions, although one must realise that there are the same dangers from falls of roof in general. It is a question of balancing various technical considerations in regard to the strength of the roof.

I can go a little further and say that if, in this particular case, the management did not feel able at first to do anything to meet the men, the men would be justified in bringing the matter before the divisional inspector, and I think that it might be further pursued. I will give instructions that the divisional inspector should pay attention to this question. In general, the House will see, bearing in mind the technical considerations which I have mentioned, that the question does not seem to be one which you can justifiably deal with by legislation or regulation. Nevertheless, it will no doubt be raised by hon. Gentlemen, if an opportunity occurs, during the discussion on the Safety Bill next Session. In the meantime we shall, at the Mines Department, watch developments very carefully.

Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-eight Minutes before Four o'clock until Monday, 5th June, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.