MINES AND QUARRIES BILL

HL Deb 09 November 1954 vol 189 cc1201-22

2.40 p.m.

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 3 [Rights of mine manager with respect to instructions given by or on behalf of owner]:

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "twelve months" and insert "three years". The noble Lord said: My Lords, this matter was fairly fully debated on the last occasion, and I do not think it necessary to repeat the arguments. We still feel that a three years' provision gives a better guarantee, and we know that the organisation responsible for the miners feel strongly on this issue. The noble Earl promised that he would look at the matter again. Without putting forward further argument, I sincerely hope that having looked at it again, the noble Earl will be able to accept this Amendment. We feel that it will not impose a burden on anyone, and will relieve some people of anxiety. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 4, leave out ("twelve months") and insert ("three years").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (THE EARL OF SELKIRK)

My Lords, the noble Lord has moved that the instructions under Clause 3 should be retained for three years instead of twelve months. It is true that under the Reform (Limitation of Actions) Act, 1954, action in relation to personal injuries may be brought within three years of the date on which the cause of action arose. Although we are in the position that we regard it as remote that an action would be brought after twelve months, I canot say that it is impossible, and I cannot say that it will mean great difficulty for those immediately concerned. In the circumstances, I am pleased to accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17 [Keeping of plans]:

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, here we are dealing with the question of the keeping of plans. There may be two inspectors involved, one dealing with the plans of workings and another dealing with the question of the general safe custody of documents of the mine. This Amendment is to make it clear that it is the inspector dealing with plans who decides whether any supplementary plans are necessary. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 24, after ("inspector") insert ("by whom the notice is served"). —(Lord Hawke.)

On Question. Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20 [Transmission to inspector, and preservation, of plans of abandoned or disused mires, seams and veins]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 5, after ("and") insert ("any").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, this again is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 33, after the first ("the") insert ("last").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24 [Limitation on number of persons to be employed at coal, &c., mines in places with single exits]:

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, when we were discussing Clause 34 on the Committee stage, we accepted a proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, to alter the words as we propose to alter these words here. As we are dealing here with the traversibility of ways to a coal face, and we were dealing then with the construction and maintenance of roads, we think the same consideration should apply to both. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 19, line 13, leave out ("reasonable convenience and safety") and insert ("safety and reasonable convenience").—(Lord Hawke.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 31 [Safety precautions with respect to entrances to shafts, staple-pits and outlets]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 22, line 23, leave out ("An") and insert ("Every").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 37 [Transport rules]:

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 28, line 25, leave out ("powers") and insert ("power").—(Lord Hawke.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39 [Provisions for securing safety of foot-passengers in transport roads]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 29, line 35, after ("a") insert ("particular").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 41 [Safety measures relating to use of vehicles]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to make quite centain that certain types of safety devices are not rendered illegal by this clause. We had a short discussion on the wording of it last time, and I hope that this wording will meet with the approval of the House. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 30, line 42, leave out ("due to") and insert ("likely to cause bodily injury to persons, being accidents caused by").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 42 [Provisions as to operation of winding and rope haulage apparatus when persons are carried]:

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, this is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 31, line 29, leave out ("whom") and insert ("who").—(Lord Hawke.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 51:

Supply of materials for support

(3) It shall be the duty of the manager of every mine to secure that a sufficient supply of suitable materials for support is at all times readily available, for use in his working place, to each workman who needs them, and—

VISCOUNT HALL

My Lords, the object of this Amendment is to clarify a point upon which everyone is agreed, that materials should be available to the man who is actually working at a place of work, and not elsewhere. With the introduction of the machine into the mining industry, the industry is different from what it was in the old days when we had the stall and heading, or the heading and stall, and not the conveyor face which we have at the present time. It was easy to define "working place" when we had the stall, and where a collier had the responsibility of looking after about 15 yards of the face. With the conveyor face, which varies in length from about 100 yards to 200 yards, although the filler has about from 12 to 15 yards of a stint it is difficult to define it. That is why we are anxious that this Amendment should be agreed to. As at present drafted, the words "for use in his working place" do not really qualify anything. They are merely declaratory of a place where the man is eventually going to use the material. What we want, and what our Amendment is designed to secure, is that these words should qualify not where the material is to be used, but where it is to be made available. The effect of our Amendment is to link up "available" with "for use." The material has to be readily available for use at the place which is the actual working place. We think that these are better words than those in the Bill at the present time, and we ask that the Amendment should be accepted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 39, leave out (",for use in his working place") and insert ("for use, at the place where he is actually working").—(Viscount Hall.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Viscount that we are in substantial agreement as to what we want. There has been a big change in coal mines since 1911, particularly by the introduction of the conveyor, which has revolutionised the whole long- wall process of stripping. I am bound to say, however, that I have doubts as to whether the noble Viscount's words better define what we are mutually agreed to present. I have two reasons. First, I should like to call in aid some words which the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, spoke in an earlier stage of these proceedings. He said that the Bill was written in good, robust, simple English; and I say, with great respect, that the clause as printed is in better, more robust and simpler English than the Amendment. Secondly, the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, also referred on that occasion to the word "reasonable", and what he said about "reasonable" applies with equal force to the word "actually." I am bound to give the noble Viscount this warning: nobody can be perfectly certain what the word "actually" will be held to mean. One thing it does mean beyond peradventure is that if a man is not working, then it is not "actually" his working place; that is quite clear. The words suggested are "the place where he is actually working," and if the noble Viscount thinks that those words are better, I shall not resist them. We think the words as printed in the clause give The meaning the noble Viscount and I have in mind: that supports shall be available to the man at the face when he strips, so that he can readily put up a support to hold up the roof and not be tempted to go on taking coal out without putting a proper support. If, however, the noble Viscount wants his words I shall not resist him; but I am bound to confess that I think the Bill is better as printed.

2.52 p.m.

VISCOUNT HALL

My Lords, I have, of course, consulted my friends from the mining industry. They may not be experts upon the English language, but they are experts upon mining language. It is their wish that these words should be inserted in the place of the words which are actually there. I would press the noble Earl to agree to the acceptance of this Amendment. It will be very much better understood by those who will have to operate this Bill when it becomes an Act.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

Very well.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 35, line 42, leave out ("in his working place") and insert ("at the place where he is actually working").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

My Lords, this again is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 7, leave out ("his working place") and insert ("the place where he was actually working").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

My Lords, This consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 9, leave out ("working").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

My Lords, this also is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 12, leave out ("in that working") and insert ("at that").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 53 [Duties of deputies in relation to support]:

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, this is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 36, line 27, after ("by") insert ("virtue of").—(Lord Hawke.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 54 [Provisions as to support rules]:

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, this also is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 37, line 25, after ("by") insert ("virtue of").—(Lord Hawke.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 73 [Means of escape from rooms in which there is special risk of fire, &c.]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, at the Committee stage we moved a new clause providing for means of escape. That clause was in much wider terms and fuller than the clause which existed before, and I understand that noble Lords opposite generally welcomed it. At the same time, noble Lords wished to emphasise the importance, in any question of means of escape, of having two exits. We entirely accept the importance of that point, but we thought it was covered by the clause as we had drawn it. However, in order to meet the point, we have now added the words which stand in the Amendment. I hope that this meets what noble Lords had in mind, and that it will not in any way damage the broad, general obligation which we had intended in drafting this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 1, after ("taken") insert ("(whether by the provision of two or more exits or otherwise)").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 79 [Withdrawal of workmen in cases of danger]:

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, we are dealing here with cases of the arising of sudden danger, in this case through the detection of inflammable gas. As the Bill stands, the man in charge of that part of the mine first withdraws his men from the affected area and then gives to his immediate superior and any of his colleagues in charge of other parts of the mine who may be affected notice of the danger. If we turn to the definition clause, Clause 181, we find that "notice" means "a notice in writing." It would lead to a ridiculous set of circumstances if, in a case of sudden danger, the man had to give notice in writing to his superior of the existence of the danger. We think that that is wrong in a case where time is vital. Therefore we propose to amend the Bill so that the man in question merely informs his superior and his affected colleagues. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 54, line 30, leave out ("give, to") and insert ("inform").—(Lord Hawke.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 54, line 32, leave out ("notice of the fact").—(Lord Hawke.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 54, line 35, leave out ("as").—(Lord Hawke.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, in the course of the Committee stage the noble Viscount, Lord Furness, raised the question of the meaning of the word "maintained" in Clause 86. First of all, I should inform your Lordships that we have taken out the interpretation of the word "maintained" which was inserted in Clause 181. The noble Viscount's anxiety was that it had a wider meaning that was absolutely necessary. It might have meant, as the clause was drafted, that the buildings at the surface of a mine should be newly painted and the windows and doors should be kept in proper repair, but we never had that in mind. We are concerned with only one thing, and that is that the structure should be safe. Accordingly, we have redrafted the clause to emphasise this point. I think it is quite clear what we are here intending. I hope it will meet not only the general point of safety, but the point which the noble Viscount, Lord Furness, had in mind when he first raised the matter. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 58, line 19, leave out ("of safe construction and properly maintained") and insert ("kept in safe condition").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

VISCOUNT FURNESS

My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend the Paymaster General for the consultations which gave rise to the phrasing now contained in his Amendment. It is a great improvement on the Amendment which I moved at a previous stage. I have much pleasure in supporting the present Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 92:

Medical examinations

92. Provision may be made by regulations for requiring persons employed or seeking employment at mines to submit themselves for medical examination and for prohibiting the employment at a mine, either absolutely or in a particular capacity or in particular work, of—

1. (a) a person who upon being required to submit himself for medical examination in 1209 accordance with the regulations fails without reasonable cause to do so;
2. (b) a person as to whom it is determined in accordance with the regulations that by reason of his physical or mental condition, he is unfit for such employment or for such employment in that capacity or in that work, as the ease may be.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after "requiring," to insert "young" [persons]. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with a matter about which we had a great deal of discussion on Committee stage. Perhaps I may at this moment say this: that I very much appreciated the opportunity of meeting the President of the National Union of Mineworkers and of discussing with him the point of this Amendment and other features of this Bill. It was certainly a great help to me. I appreciated his coming to see us. When we discussed this matter, we had two suggestions in front of us. One was the Government's Amendment, which fully met all the undertakings which my right honourable friend the Minister of Fuel and Power had made in another place, and the other was an Opposition Amendment which, if I may say so, went very much further than anything which up to then had been suggested, and was aimed primarily at restricting the operation of the whole clause in regard to medical examination, to new entrants. Both Amendments were withdrawn at that time for further consideration.

As a result of our consideration, we now propose to draw a distinction between the two separate classes of examination. First of all, there are medical examinations, with the consequential possibility of restricting employment in the interests of the person himself—that is to say, to ascertain whether it is desirable that he should continue his occupation. The second class of medical examinations are those intended to safeguard the health or safety of others. It appeared to us that those two classes are quite different. We formed the impression that it was most unlikely that the powers given by the clause would be used for the former purpose—that is to say, for the examination of people in their own interest, and accordingly it appeared to us unnecessary to take the powers to examine what we might describe as "established miners." In the terms of the clause undoubtedly it could have been done, and I think I am right in saying that that was the basis of the opposition to the Amendment which the Government proposed. On the other hand, there are classes of workers whose "physical or mental condition," to use the words of the clause, would in certain circumstances constitute a serious danger to the safety and health of other workers. It is in these circumstances that the Government desire the powers of medical examination to be available. The Minister however is advised that these circumstances could be dealt with by general powers to make regulations under Clause 141, and accordingly it is not necessary to bring them in within, the provisions of the clause we are now considering.

The noble Viscount, Lord Hall, expressed the view on the Committee stage that this matter could be dealt with by industrial agreement. We very much hope that that will be the case—indeed, I believe that it will be. But I also believe that he will not disagree with the view that, if such agreement were not obtained, the Minister could not just stand aside in this sort of case. His general responsibility—indeed his duty—to secure the health and the safety of workers in the mines makes it necessary for the Minister to have powers of this character. I am bound to point out that when we come to regulations antler Clause 141, the whole process as laid down in the Second Schedule would be necessary—which means publication, inquiry, objections and, of course, ultimately, the possibility of a Negative Resolution before both Houses of Parliament. In those circumstances the Government are able to agree with the Opposition that in general terms Clause 92 need not apply to established miners. It is, however, felt desirable that the individual interests of young persons should be safeguarded. It has always been the cardinal point in industrial legislation, and under agreements that we have entered into under the International Labour Organisation Convention, that young persons should be safeguarded and looked after.

Accordingly, the clause as we now propose that it shall be (I am dealing with all three Amendments in my name to Clouse 92) will be confined to young persons and will not apply to established miners. That being the case, it is no longer necessary to have the appeal procedure, and we have cut that right out. Therefore, the clause to which the noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, objected is no longer necessary and has been dropped. I very much hope that this new proposal of the Government fully meets the two separate sets of objections which were raised to the Amendment put forward by the Government on the Committee stage, and that the House will be able to agree to the Amendments on the Marshalled List, the first of which I now beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 60, line 10, after ("requiring") insert ("young").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

VISCOUNT HALL

My Lords, I respond most readily to what has been said by the noble Earl. I would express to him the gratitude, not only of myself and my colleague, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, but also of the executive of the Mineworkers' Federation and of miners generally. There was a very strong feeling amongst miners against the powers which would have been given under the original clause, but now I can say without any hesitation that I think the noble Earl and the Government, and the Ministry of Fuel and Power, have met the situation. We are most grateful to the noble Earl and to the Ministry for this concession. I was a little concerned about what the noble Earl said in connection with regulations. We understood that there was a possibility of regulations being introduced in due course under Clause 141. It might well be that special circumstances would arise in which, because of the dangers involved, it would be appropriate to provide for some form of medical examination. The precise circumstances in which such regulations would be appropriate, and the safeguards to be provided, would obviously be a matter for discussion between the trade unions. Within those limitations there seem to me and to my noble friends to be no objection at all to the Amendments standing in the name of the noble Earl.

May I say that I was very happy about the fact that some members of the Miners' Executive were able to meet the noble Earl yesterday. We discovered that, owing to the spirit of conciliation which prevailed, there was no difficulty about our approach to all the matters connected with this Bill. Our purpose was to make this Bill a little better than it was, and as a result of the discussions I think there was a much better understanding, not only in connection with these Amendments but also with other Amendments contained in the Marshalled List. We know that since the introduction of this Bill approaches between the miners and the National Coal Board, and, indeed, the Ministry of Fuel and Power, have always been of the friendliest. Had that not been so, it would have been difficult for this Bill to have reached the stage which it has reached. We hope that, in the preparation of the regulations, that same good will and feeling will exist. Again, I would offer to the noble Earl and to the Department very many thanks for the consideration and understanding which they have given to the production of the Amendments which are now upon the Order Paper and with which we agree.

LORD WEBB-JOHNSON

My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl and to express my satisfaction at the fact that he has got such general agreement in regard to this clause, and also to express my gratitude to him for the careful consideration he has given to the points I raised on the Committee stage.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 60, line 15, after ("a") insert ("young").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, this Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 60, line 18, after ("a") insert ("young").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 110 [Provisions relating to use of ropeways and vehicles]:

3.9 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, this is the same as Amendment No. 9, for the quarries. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 67, line 28, leave out ("due to") and insert ("likely to cause bodily injury to persons, being accidents caused by").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 112 [Dust precautions]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, it is thought that the word "any" here is redundant. By leaving it out we bring the wording of the clause into line with that in Clause 74, page 51, lines 16 and 17, dealing with dust precautions in coal mines. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 68, line 14, leave out ("any").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, we have already discussed this point and the necessity, where danger arises, of informing a superior. In this case we are dealing with quarries, whereas in my last Amendment we were dealing with mines. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 69, line 15, leave out ("give notice of the fact that the danger exists to") and insert ("inform").—(Lord Hawke.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 69, line 18, leave out ("to").—(Lord Hawke.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, this Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 69, line 20, at end insert ("that the danger exists;").—(Lord Hawke.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 124 [Prohibition of employment below ground in certain cases]:

3.12 p.m.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR moved, after subsection (1) to insert: (2) From the date of the coming into operation of this Act, no female shall be employed at a mine on any work involving the getting, processing or preparation of coal unless she was in the employment of the mine on that date.

The noble Lord said: We put this Amendment down for the Report stage in the hope that the noble Earl would have had time to go into the matter again and might have changed his attitude. Previously he felt that it was better to leave it as an administrative obligation rather than as a statutory provision. It is on that point we differ. My noble friend, Lord Hall, in our previous discussion, pointed out that there are only three districts, out of twenty, which employ women on work of this kind. Those three districts employ about one-sixth—no more—of the people engaged in the coal industry. The other districts are able to provide for certain old or disabled men to be employed in jobs which women are now doing in these three districts. I thought from the remarks made by the noble Earl that he was rather sympathetic to that type of argument: namely, that the course followed in the other districts cleared the way for the disabled or aged miner who was unable to follow his ordinary occupation.

I will not go into the question of suitability. I know the industry well and I am satisfied in my own mind that women are better not employed in this kind of work, I personally should prefer that they were not there. Is the noble Earl able to say anything more than he said previously, when his view was that the question would resolve itself in due course? He is quite right: certain people responsible for some aspects of the industry will see that it resolves itself. However, I should prefer that the Government should see their way to make suitable provision and lay down that upon the coming into operation of this Act the exclusion shall become effective. I thought the noble Earl was debating unfairly in arguing that because we said that those now there can stay as long as they want (although they should not be replaced by other female labour) we were weakening our argument. Our purpose in bringing forward this Amendment at the Report stage is in the hope that the Government have changed their attitude on the question of the employment of women in this type of work. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 76, line 5, at end insert— ("(2) From the date of the coming into operation of this Act, no female shall be employed at a mine on any work involving the getting, processing or preparation of coal unless she was in the employment of the mine on that date.")—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, I rather sympathise with noble Lords opposite in regard to this Amendment. I agree it is hard to put somebody out of work by Act of Parliament; nevertheless, I hope they will get their way.

3.15 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, we discussed this matter at some length at the Committee stage. The only point in the argument which impresses me is that the noble Lord should raise it a second time; because this House has such a high regard for the noble Lord that anything which he raises once—let alone twice—must be a matter of earnest concern to us all. I have accordingly applied to my mind, as no doubt the noble Lord has to his, the searching question which Oliver Cromwell addressed to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland more than 300 years ago. He said: I beseech you"— and he used an oath which I will not repeat— think it possible you may be mistaken. I have asked my advisers at the Ministry of Fuel and Power and the Ministry of Labour whether there was anything I had said to which they took exception, or were there any points they had to make. They said substantially what I had said: we do restrict women labour in certain circumstances, but we always do so for a definite reason. We do it where there is any question of women straining themselves. We impose restrictions where the work might necessitate the lifting of too heavy a weight. We will not permit women to clean moving machinery as there is always the risk that their clothing or their hair might conceivably be caught up and endanger them. We do it in cases where the risk of lead poisoning exists, because such poisoning is much more serious in its effect upon women than upon men. We do restrict women in such special cases.

But noble Lords opposite have put forward no specific reason why women should be restricted from the form of employment which the Bill permits. The noble Lord has argued fairly that he would like older miners to be engaged in work which women now do on the surface at the pits; but I doubt whether the noble Lord could point to a case in practice where an older miner is available who could take the place which a woman is now filling. Even were it so, I would ask the noble Lord to consider whether it is not dangerous to suggest that that should be done because all the men engaged in this industry want it—even if it were true (which, with respect, I question) that the 700,000 miners all say they want women excluded. Are we to accept the argument that in a substantially man-run industry like this, if the men engaged in it wish, they can drive out all the women? Let us take Law. Only in comparatively recent times have women been admitted to the Bar. There are not very many at present in that profession, but the few presumably, pro tanto, take a certain amount of work from the men. If one accepts the argument of the noble Lord, if the men of the Bar got together they could say, "We will drive the women out." Is that justice? Is it fair or reasonable?

We know that women want to work on the surface at the pits; it is the work most suited to them and on the whole they are pretty healthy doing it. Whatever may happen in industrial negotiations is not a matter in which I should interefere. But it is a very serious matter for any majority in any industry to drive out a minority and accordingly to prevent them from earning their living in the way in which they, the minority, happen to have selected. For that reason I suggest that this proposal is quite wrong, and it would be wrong for Parliament, merely because a majority in an industry want to exclude a minority, to agree. I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment, because I feel that basically it is wrong for Parliament to accept such a proposition.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

My Lords, I am amazed at the noble Earl's argument that the National Union of Mineworkers have any thought of driving women out of the industry. They have done nothing of the kind. I hope the noble Earl realises that. It is not correct to say that the men in the industry want to drive the women out. What the men have said is that the women ought to go out, and that they ought to go out with Parliamentary approval. That is the end which they are trying to achieve. If the noble Earl visualises a miners' strike to get the women out, he is under a misapprehension. The miners have not said that they will strike to get the women out. What they have said, through their representatives, both here and in another place, is that women ought not to be doing this work. I am sorry that on this occasion I

Clause 133:

Form of official books and preservation and inspection of entries therein

133.—(1) Every book which, in pursuance of this Act or regulations, is provided by the owner of a mine or quarry for the purpose of the entry therein of any report, record or other item of information shall be in such form as the Minister may direct.

(2) Every entry made in any such book as aforesaid or a copy of that entry shall be preserved until the expiration of twelve months after the date on which it was made or such other period (whether longer or shorter) as may be prescribed for an entry of any class and, until no longer required to be preserved, shall be kept at the office at the mine or quarry to which it relates or at such other place as may be approved by an inspector and be open to inspection by, or by a person authorised in that behalf in writing by, any person employed at that mine or quarry.

3.29 p.m.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

My Lords, this Amendment, as you will notice, is consequential upon the first Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 81, line 21, leave out ("twelve months") and insert ("three years").—(Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, this Amendment is not really consequential

cannot oblige by withdrawing the Amendment.

On Question, Whether the Amendment shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 11; Not-Contents, 43.

CONTENTS
Lucan, E. [Teller.]	Ammon, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.
	Douglas of Barloch, L.	Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.
Alexander of Hillsborough, V.	Greenhill, L.	Silkin, L.
Hall, V.	Haden-Guest, L. [Teller.]	Wise, L,

NOT-CONTENTS
Kilmuir, V. (Lord Chancellor.)	Selkirk, E.	Dovercourt, L.
		Ebbisham, L.
Salisbury, M. (L. President.)	Allenby, V.	Foley, L.
	Devonport, V.	Freyberg, L.
Cholmondeley, M.	Furness, V.	Hamilton of Dalzell, L.
Lothian, M.	Goschen, V	Hawke, L.
Reading, M.	Mersey, V.	Hindlip, L.
	Monsell, V.	Lloyd, L.
Albemarle, E.	Stonehaven, V.	Mancroft, L.
Beauchamp, E.	Swinton, V.	Napier, L.
Bessborough, E.	Woolton, V.	O'Hagan, L.
Fortescue, E. [Teller.]		Remnant, L.
Munster, E.	Ashton of Hyde, L.	Rochdale, L.
Onslow, E. [Teller.]	Belstead, L.	Saltoun, L.
Radnor, E.	Digby, L.	Savile, L.
Rothes, E.	Dormer, L.	Webb-Johnson, L.

Resolved in the Negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

tial on the first Amendment, if I may say so with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor. It deals not with the very narrow and limited subjects which come under Amendment No. 1 but with a fantastic quantity of books. As I have explained, there are something of the order of a hundred different types of books, of which there may be no fewer than forty of one type in existence at the same time. This is a matter of some inconvenience to the National Coal Board—I have to make that point clear—but in view of the fact that the noble Lord has pressed this matter, I am not prepared to say that there is sufficient inconvenience to the National Coal Board and other mine owners to justify refusing the Amendment. There is a remote contingency that the point which the noble Lord has made might be justified. In these circumstances, I am prepared to accept the Amendment, but that does not mean that the noble Lord is "getting away with it" as if it were a small consequential Amendment.

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

My Lords, I have no intention of "getting away with it" as a small consequential Amendment. It was my intention to move it for the same reason that I moved the other.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 145 [General powers of inspectors]:

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, we believe that these words are necessary to clarify the meaning of this clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 88, line 8, after ("being") insert ("in either case").—(Lord Hawke.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 151 [Fencing of abandoned and disused mines and of quarries]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, this Amendment and the next, I am assured, are not much more than drafting. It was felt that the words previously printed were not sufficiently accurate and wide. The only word to which I want to draw your Lordships' attention is "abating," which has been put in. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 94, line 37, leave out from ("quarry") to ("shall") in line 40, and insert ("for the purpose of abating, or preventing the recurrence of, a nuisance under the last foregoing subsection or in reimbursing a local authority in respect of the abatement, or prevention of the recurrence of, such a nuisance").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, this Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 95, line 2, leave out from ("1936") to end of line 6 and insert ("to a statutory nuisance and to the abatement thereof, there shall be respectively substituted references to Part II of the Public Health (Scotland) Act, 1897, to such a nuisance as is mentioned in paragraph (1) of section sixteen of that Act and to the removal thereof").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 152 [Offences]:

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, the words in the Amendment appear to be necessary to make it clear that when the owner contravenes the Act in respect of a duty specifically laid on him, the manager and under-manager are not guilty. Without these words, there might well be some element of doubt. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 97, line 3, after ("contravention") insert ("by the owner of the mine or quarry"). —(Lord Hawke.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 156 [Defence available to person charged with offence not committed personally]:

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 98, line 26, leave out ("a person") and insert ("on persons").—(Lord Hawke.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after Clause 170, to insert the following new clause:

Provisions as to knowledge by officials, &c., of Welsh language

".Where the natural language of communication of the persons employed at a mine or quarry or of a substantial number of those persons is Welsh, then, in considering the qualifications of candidates for appointments required, by or by virtue of this Act, to be made in the case of that mine or quarry, regard shall be had to the possession of a knowledge of that language."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, on Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, moved an Amendment seeking to ensure that, so far as possible, Welsh-speaking officials should be appointed in Wales. We promised to consider this point and I hope that what we have done has steered the narrow course between the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, and the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, who is not here to-day. What we have said is that where the national language of the people engaged on the job is Welsh, it is in the general interests of efficiency, and, I think, of harmonious operation, that, so far as may be reasonable, the officials in charge should know the language. I think that is a common-sense approach to the subject, and that anybody who would not give any consideration to this matter would be rather foolish. I hope that this Amendment meets the noble Lord's point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 170, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD MACDONALD OF GWAENYSGOR

My Lords, I rise only to express my appreciation of the effort made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, to meet my point; and having regard to what the noble Earl, Lord Raglan, said on the last occasion, I think that he does meet it. There are collieries in Wales where the percentage of Welsh- speaking miners is very small indeed. They appear in the main to be in the county from which the noble Earl, Lord Raglan, comes—Monmouthshire. I think the wording now meets what I had in mind. Inspectors were covered in rather stronger terms than these, and I thought it right and proper that the rest of the officials should be in the same category. They will not be in quite the same category under this Amendment, but the matter is now more or less under the National Coal Board and the Regional Boards, which I know fairly well, and I have every confidence in them. Therefore, I accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 173 [Parliamentary control of orders, rules and regulations]:

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, this Amendment is little more than drafting. Where the Minister makes orders they are exercisable by statutory instrument subject to a Resolution of either House of Parliament. The exception is in the case of special regulations or orders expressly relating to a particular mine or quarry. The exception should also apply to an order relating to a particular set of premises of a mine or quarry. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 107, line 39, after ("quarry") insert ("or a particular set of premises").—(Lord Hawke.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 181 [General interpretation provisions]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, this Amendment is to the interpretation clause. In dealing with Clause 86 on Committee stage, I said that we would omit the reference to "maintained." This Amendment fulfils that promise. Perhaps without unduly stretching the principles of relevance, I may refer to an earlier Amendment to Clause 18. In the course of the Committee stage, we proposed to leave out the definition of "bodily injury," but the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, objected, and I withdrew the Amendment. I am afraid that I have to apologise to the House for having then said that these words appeared in only two places in the Bill. I now find that they appear not only in Clauses 41 and 110, but also in Clauses 37 and 91, in Clauses 116 and 117, dealing with notification of accidents, and in Clause 155, dealing with penalties; and I believe also in Clauses 37 and 62. I apologise to your Lordships for the inaccuracy in not knowing the number of times on which, the words "bodily injury" appear in the Bill. On looking at the matter, I am bound to agree with the noble Viscount that the words "bodily injury" should be retained in the interpretation clause. I now beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 111, leave out lines 41 and 42.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

VISCOUNT HALL

My Lords, I should have thought that the noble Earl need not apologise for anything in relation to this Bill: the marvel is that he has mastered it so well. That he has made only one mistake reflects very great credit on him and on the noble Lord who sits beside him. I thought I was right at the time and I am pleased that the noble Earl has made the statement he has made in relation to this matter.

LORD HADEN-GUEST

My Lords, may I also say how grateful I am that this mistake has been rectified?

On Question. Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule [Public inquiry into accident]:

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 121, line 12, leave out ("the last-mentioned") and insert ("that").—(Lord Hawke.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Third Schedule [Inquiries into fitness of holders of certificates and delivery up and custody of certificates in connection with prosecutions and inquiries]:

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 126, line 3, leave out ("he") and insert ("the Minister").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.