HC Deb 27 October 1948 vol 457 cc220-32

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. G. Wallace.]

10.1 p.m.

Mr. Peter Freeman (Newport)

It says much for the catholicity of this House that, after discussing such widely important matters of national interest, I am given facilities for raising such an apparently small and insignificant matter as the suffering of one small pit pony. I make no apology for that because I think that, after I have placed the case before the House, hon. Members will be as anxious as I am to remedy these grievances, not only for this particular pit pony but for his 22,000 comrades who are also working down the pits under very undesirable conditions.

This particular pit pony, who is known as Ned, comes from the Bedlington Colliery in Northumberland. I am told he is very slightly built, is only five years of age, has been less than one year down the pit, is not strong, has got thin legs, stands only 10 hands high—hardly bigger than a large dog—and is one of the smallest ponies in the pit; in addition, he is performing his ordinary daily shift, has to walk some 2½ miles over very rough ground to the hottest part of the mine and farthest away from the pithead itself over steep inclines and very rough ground.

As a result of these conditions it was noticed by one of the miners—a man named Ronald Craddock—that this pony, at the end of his shift, appeared to be very exhausted, tired and in great pain. In addition, the man stated that it was extremely difficult for this pony to get his breath, which was stertorous. He was often perspiring profusely, was very nervous, had many sears on his head, had much hair torn off, as because he was provided with no lantern, he did not see where he was going. He had bumped his head on many repeated occasions, had large lumps on his spine and had several sores.

As a result of this, on 25th April of this year he complained after seeing this going on for some time. He told his foreman that, in his opinion, Ned was unable to perform the abnormal work being allotted to him of pulling some 30 tubs or trucks fully loaded over these steep inclines under very undesirable conditions and that he felt that some inquiry ought to be made into the condition of this pony. The only reply he received, so he assures me, was a grunt from his foreman and no action whatever was taken. A week later, after a continuance of these conditions, he repeated his complaint and said that he felt his only protest was to make it clear that he would refuse to work while this pony was being treated down the mine in this way. The foreman told him; "If you refuse to do this work you know what you can do," implying he had no alternative but to leave his job.

On the afternoon of the same day he was called into the manager's office and given 14 days' notice to quit. The reason given to this miner was that he was a had influence down the mine. Nothing whatever was said about inquiring into his complaint and no offer was made to deal with the, pony or to investigate any of the matters he had raised. That statement is borne out by the notice given to him on behalf of the National Coal Board, in these words: I hereby give you notice that your employment at this colliery will terminate on 18th May. That was 14 days afterwards. When he went to claim his unemployment pay this was refused him. The reason given by the insurance officer was that his employment had ceased through misconduct, but the nature of the conduct was not indicated and he is unaware of it to this day. Surely it does not appear to be a gross misconduct to complain of the suffering of a pit pony. A little later he was offered his job back provided he would withdraw the allegations of the complaint about the pony. This he refused to do and he is still out of work.

Some weeks later I raised this question in the House. Meanwhile, no investigation had been made into the condition of the pony but after I raised the matter investigations were made. My complaints are as follows: First, that Ned was unfit to do this abnormal work on this steep incline, pulling 30 tubs fully loaded under the conditions which I have indicated. I am supported by the signed statement, which I hold, of 15 other miners, who consider the grievance of this miner to be fully justified, and that this pony should not have been allowed to work under those conditions, in spite of what any of the inspectors may say.

Although investigation was made after I raised the question in this House, Craddock was not provided with any facilities to be present on any occasion when investigations were made into the sufferings of this pony. No inspector had been to see Ned in the conditions to which I have called attention; he was seen by an inspector later under different conditions, in another part of the pit, pulling five tubs, but never under the conditions of which Craddock complained. Why was permission refused to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or the National Equine Defence League, to make inquiries underground under conditions of work of which complaint had been made?

The reasons for Craddock's dismissal should be made clear and investigations should be made of what misconduct he was guilty and why, after he complained of a pony working under such conditions, he was dismissed at 14 days' notice. I further ask why the pony was later put in a small stall with a notice over the stall saying that he was unfit and not to be used by anyone under any circumstances. When I asked what caused the pony's suffering, I was informed that it was ill-adjustment of the harness. Why such ill-adjustment of the harness could not have been put right in five minutes and the pony put to work again I do not know. He was not put back on the job but withdrawn from the pit altogether and removed to a place a mile away, so that no one could see him or know what was happening to him. It was impossible to get further information of what was happening. If this pony was so well and able to perform work, as we were assured by the inspector of mines, why was he withdrawn for such a trifling reason?

At the time under discussion another pony was treated underground for a smashed eye, another for a broken nose. Both were treated underground. Another pony, called "Wonder," apparently fell dead from exhaustion, or—I am unable to ascertain the facts—as a result of breaking his neck by accident. Before he actually died, he was treated underground. Why Ned could not be treated underground for such a trifling cause as the ill-adjustment of the harness, I do not know. It seems to me that Craddock's case was fully proved and that this small pony was not able to perform its services. I am asking for a full inquiry into the facts of the case.

I now wish to deal with the wider subject of the conditions under which this pony worked. I think one is justified in calling attention to these matters on such an occasion. There are 22,000 of these small ponies working underground under conditions in which no one would like to continue to work. They are underground not for a small part of their time as is the miner, who spends five-sixths of his time out of the pit, but are called upon for 24 hours of the day to be underground and suffering all the disadvantages appertaining to a pit from which it is impossible to be absent. These small creatures breed wild under all conditions. They are used to perfect freedom and unrestricted liberty until they reach the age of four years and then the timid, shy creatures are called upon to go down the mines.

This is what an inspector of mines said in 1930. I am quoting Mr. R. L. Layfield: Now and again ponies are met with in the mines who from their first entry would not tighten their traces, even to pull an empty tub, although they had been willing and tractable and would perform fairly hard work on the surface. It can only be surmised that such ponies have been subjected to some terrifying ordeal, the seriousness of which has affected them in such a manner that they are rendered useless for work in the mine. I would quote one or two other statements made in this connection. He refers to the rough underground conditions which I spoke of earlier. He says: Much unnecessary hard toil and consequent distress to an animal can be caused by deep slipppery holes between sleepers, or when a road is thickly carpeted with dirt and loose stone, making it impossible for him to secure a firm foothold so that he would be able to handle the load more effectively and with the least possible exertion. He calls attention to the double shift ponies are sometimes called upon to work: Ponies called upon to work double shifts daily soon get out of condition and break down sooner or later under the strain. It is, therefore uneconomical to subject them to the point of exhaustion and fatigue by excessive hard toil. Harness will not fit properly when ponies are in lean condition, and this is a cause of sore backs and shoulders. In a mine in Durham, it was admitted by the previous Minister of Mines on a recent occasion, that 40 per cent. of the ponies are called upon to be worked more than one shift.

One last statement: A rest of from 15 to 20 minutes is advisable after four hours work to allow the animal to partake of food and water. That was good 15 years ago when eight hour shifts were being worked but it would be a shorter time on the present occasions. These little animals are suffering from heat, dust, dirt, rough conditions, dancing lights, and noise and the objectionable intolerable conditions at the best lead to intolerable suffering.

Robert Smillie, the President of the National Miners Federation once said that the life of any pony down a mine was a life of hell itself. Petitions to amend these conditions have been presented on many occasions. A Bill was presented in 1928. It was again presented in 1929, in 1930, 1932 and 1934, signed by no less a signatory than the previous Minister of Mines, Mr. David Grenfell and by the present Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Tom Williams. But no action has been taken to alter these conditions since. I myself presented a petition two and a half years ago asking for an investigation into these conditions, and the petition was signed by 50,000 people.

Mr. Speaker

Is the hon. Member asking for Parliament to pass a Bill? If so, that is not in Order on the Adjournment.

Mr. Freeman

I am not asking for Parliamentary Measures. The regulations I am asking to be enforced can be put into operation by the National Coal Board by regulation. I only call attention to conditions which can be amended by Amendment. At any rate, the Mine Act provided these conditions, and I wish to draw attention to some of them. These conditions were in force in 1911, 37 years ago and no alteration has been made to them since. Thirty seven years ago these conditions were harsh and difficult. They have got steadily worse apparently by the increased mechanisation of the mines, and by the large number of young miners going down the mine who choose that vocation as an alternative to going into the Army, and largely by the forced production and increased desire to get a larger quantity of coal.

Under these conditions there is no limit to the time a pony can be worked. I gave one example of 40 per cent. of the ponies working more than one shift. They can be worked seven days a week, 365 days a year, or 366 in a leap year, without any rest or holiday or respite of any kind. There is no provision for any limit in these conditions in the arrangements at present provided for the ponies. They can be worked for any length of time from the day they go down the mine at the age of four until either they fall down dead or are incapable of any further labour. These conditions should be altered. Provision should be made for limitation and control.

No one will question that much is being done by the National Coal Board to remedy this state of affairs. I have no fault to find with the pit drivers or the miners, but the conditions under which these ponies are allowed to work call for immediate improvement. There is a case mentioned in a book which I hold in my hand of a pony which has worked down a mine for no fewer than 25 years without respite. There is another case, which was quoted in this House, of a pony being worked for 14 hours without food or drink.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens)

When was that?

Mr. Freeman

I can give the date if it is necessary. An investigation was made by one of His Majesty's inspectors and the allegation was accepted by the Minister of Mines——

Mr. Robens

When was the date of that?

Mr. Freeman

I am afraid I cannot trace the date. I can provide full details. The statement was admitted by the Minister.

Mr. Robens

But the hon. Member does not know when that was.

Mr. Freeman

It is referred to in this document but I cannot see the date at the moment. There is a whole page of details.

The reforms which I suggest should be provided immediately for these ponies, and none of which are in operation at present, include provisions that no pony should be allowed to work for more than one shift a day or more than five shifts in a week. No pony should be allowed to work for more than 10 years down the mine. I have here an illustration of a pony which worked for 25 years down a mine. It was also admitted by a previous Minister that, of 23 ponies, seven had worked for a period of more than 15 years down the mine. I suggest that at least some holiday should be provided each year for these ponies. They are down the mines continuously without any sight of the sky, any breath of fresh air or frolic in the fields or any freedom whatever. That they should be free for a month each year from these intolerable conditions is another reasonable privilege which should be assured to these small, innocent ponies.

There is only one inspector for every 3,000 ponies. He is utterly incapable, therefore, of seeing that every pony receives proper attention and careful notice. I suggest that a larger number of inspectors should be provided and I propose that there should be one inspector for not more than 1,000 ponies. Ponies should be open to inspection not only by their own inspectors who are on the pay roll of the National Coal Board, but by inspectors from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or the National Equine Defence League, without notice, as is the case at present with any other animal which is suffering in this country. There should be opportunities for a complaint to be made when necessary, as in the case to which I have referred. There should be a public inquest in the case of every pony that is killed or dies underground, in order to find the reason and to ensure that some remedy is put into operation to avoid a repetition of the accident.

Finally, I suggest that there should be public information given about the condition of the ponies. The provisions imposed in the 1911 Act provide that the owner should give a report every year on the condition and the number of his ponies, their accidents, illnesses and details of the number that die down the mines. In the Reports of the National Coal Board for 1946 and 1947 there is not one word about the condition of ponies or details of any accidents. There is no report whatever of the number of pit ponies down the mines and of their conditions. There are no details of what happens to them, in spite of the provisions to which I have referred. A statement should be made. Within a reasonable time all these ponies should be withdrawn from the mines, and mechanisation should do their work. Within a period of, say, 10 years, no pony should be allowed to continue in these undesirable conditions which, at the best, are a hell upon earth.

Several Hon. Members rose——

10.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Fuel and Power (Mr. Robens)

I am sorry that it is necessary for me to intervene at this stage and thus prevent other hon. Members from taking part in this Debate. I know that several hon. Members wished to speak. I do not doubt the sincerity of my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Peter Freeman) in raising this matter, but I find that the details he has given vary very considerably from the facts that I have in relation to this case. I do not know whether it is quite fair to produce in this House material which is 18 years old in one instance and a reference to the Act of 1911, and by implication to indicate that something approved so long ago is still in operation and, therefore, is bad because it is so old. In point of fact, the regulations in the 1911 Act—they are far too lengthy for me to deal with now—make it clear that, if properly carried out, they should enable all these ponies to be looked after in a careful and fair way.

I assure my hon. Friend and the House that the Ministry, which has a special responsibility in this matter, carries that responsibility very seriously and it is in no way second either to my hon. Friend or other hon. Gentlemen who belong to the various associations in its desire to show kindness to animals and to make sure that pit ponies are not unduly worked or hurt in any way. As my hon. Friend knows, the treatment of all animals in the country is subject to a special Act—the Protection of Animals Act, 1911. On top of that, the pit ponies have a further protection in the very comprehensive Third Schedule to the Coal Mines Act, 1911. The Ministry of Fuel and Power have a responsibility in this matter, and we have seven inspectors of horses in mines who are highly specialised in the subject and devote the whole of their time to the inspection of horses in mines, while other inspectors devote a part of their time to such work.

How are they able to look after these horses, and what is the type of supervision? During 1947, the horse inspectors made over 42,000 inspections of horses in the course of 2,130 visits to the pits, so that, in effect, there were two inspections for every horse employed. In addition, if there is a complaint, prompt investigation is made both by the Ministry and by the National Coal Board, and I must say that the bulk of complaints are very often found to be without foundation, while a good many others are quite exaggerated.

I want to say this to my hon. Friend, who has drawn this horrible picture about ponies in pits. Horses employed below ground today are as well treated and cared for as those employed on the surface. That does not mean that there may not be cases, both on the surface and in the mines, where a point could probably be made, but, generally speaking, the ponies underground can be said to be equally well looked after as those on the surface. In my own visits to pits, I take a particular interest to see the conditions under which ponies work, and from my own experience I would say that what I have just stated is the fact.

Mr. Freeman

Then how is it possible for such a thing to happen? They get no fresh air and never see the light of day.

Mr. Robens

They do get fresh air, just as the miners get fresh air, by means of the ventilation system; if no fresh air were admitted to the pit, obviously no mining could take place. The number of horses employed in mines—and this will be of interest to my hon. Friend, because he was concerned about it—was 63,000 in 1922, but the number fell to 32,000 in 1937, and, by June of 1947, there were 21,200, which will correct the figure given by my hon. Friend. That decline will go on. There is no question that the number of ponies in pits will decline with the advance of mechanisation of underground transport, and in any case, while there are any horses in mines at all, the Ministry of Fuel and Power and the National Coal Board will not relax their efforts in seeing to there welfare.

Let me now turn to the case of the pony Ned. The facts in relation to this case, as given by my hon. Friend, vary considerably from those in my possession, and perhaps it would be well if I were to recite the story as I know it. In the first place, this pit pony normally works five shifts a week, and his actual working time is less than five and a half hours per shift. On 4th May, a complaint was made to the overman by a putter—certainly not by Ned's driver—that the pony was being overworked.

My hon. Friend said that nothing had been done until he raised the matter in the House in September. With great respect to him, that is not accurate. The fact is that on 6th May, only two days after the complaint had been made, one of our inspectors visited the colliery, examined the pony and satisfied himself that it was in a working condition. He had the pony taken to its normal working place and watched it at work after it had already hauled 31 tubs during the morning shift. That was a fairly normal day's work, and the inspector found that the pony was quite capable of doing its normal work without being in any way distressed. However, he did not leave it at that, but went approximately a month later, on 8th June, and found the pony still in very good condition. He said, for example, that the work performed by Ned was not more than the average and that the working conditions were better than the average in the country. The horses at Bedlington are housed in ideal circumstances and in stables which are clean, electrically lighted and well ventilated, and the feeding and watering arrangements seemed very good.

On 11th May, permission was granted to Mr. Frank Christopher, M.R.C.V.S., who represents the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, to go down the pit and examine the pony in his stable. He reported to the Society that Ned was perfectly fit to carry out the work required of him and that the amount of work was very reasonable. [Interruption.] I am giving the report of Mr. Christopher, which was given to the Royal Society, and it can be checked up as to whether it is accurate or not.

On 23rd August—and he had been worked right up to then—Ned had a sore back. True, in the preceding two weeks, he had worked nine shifts, which was the average in the pit. At that stage, a notice was put over his stable to the effect that he was not to be taken out because of a sore back, and not because of the circumstances which my hon. Friend suggested. Ned was examined again by the National Coal Board's veterinary surgeon on 1st September, and there was bruising over his back. He was taken to the surface, where he responded to treatment; the condition of his back was much improved, and he is now again working in the pit. It is true that the pony is not working in the same place as before, but again, not because of the circumstances suggested by my hon. Friend. I therefore resent the inference that the pony is being moved about to circumvent any investigation. It is a regular happening in the coalfields, both for men and ponies, to change their places so as to get the advantage of better conditions.

There are many other things which I would like to have said to contradict some of the points made by my hon. Friend, but I would like to say a word about Craddock, who has been dismissed. I wrote to him, because he wrote to me, on 30th June, and I said to him: As regards your statement that you have been victimised by being discharged from your employment, I would suggest that this matter could more appropriately be discussed with your trade union representative, who will be in a position to advise you on the steps you should take for raising this matter under the Pit Conciliation Scheme. The Minister cannot and will not interfere in matters between a trade union and the National Coal Board.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Half past Ten o'Clock.