MINES MANAGEMENT BILL [H.L.] (Hansard, 16 April 1970)

§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD DELACOURT-SMITH)
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. We are dealing in this Bill with a practice which has deep roots in the social and industrial history of this country; that is to say, the practice of imposing personal, statutory duties on individual managers in the mining industry and holding them criminally responsible when things go wrong. This practice is a reminder of the heavy hazards which arose in the mining industry and which compelled the intervention of Parliament. The fundamental purpose of the Bill before your Lordships' House is to bring that practice up to date in statutory terms in the light of current technical and organisational circum-stances.
Over the years the pattern of individual responsibility has been elaborated; the statutory responsibilities of the owner of a mine and his agents and the statutory responsibilities of under-managers, engineers and other officials at a mine have also been spelled out in Acts of Parliament and regulations to ensure that the responsibility of each of these individuals is fully understood. It has indeed long been well established that authority and criminal responsibility are inseparable, both in the practice of the mining 587 industry and in the thinking of those who were in the industry.
I think one may say that, on the whole, this system has worked well. Certainly the safety record of British mines stands comparison with the best and is the envy of most mining countries. The number of men killed and seriously injured has fallen, of course, with the decline in the number of coal mines and the pit population, but perhaps what really matters is that the accident rate worked out on the basis of deaths and serious injuries per 100,000 manshifts has also fallen, particularly during the last seven years. Indeed, the latest figures, not yet published but compiled for the year 1969, indicate a rate of 1.16 per 100,000 manshifts; and this in fact represents the seventh successive annual fall in this figure. And one has to bear in mind that this improvement has been taking place against the enormous increase in mechanisation and the revolution in mining methods which has taken place and which in this sense is causing anxiety in many countries.
Against that background these figures arc encouraging, but we can never be satisfied so long as the winning of minerals exacts the toll of human suffering that it still does. And even now we must remember that in the latest figures, compiled for the year 1969, there were 100 deaths and 712 serious injuries in the industry. But the industry and Her Majesty's Inspectors of Mines are to be congratulated on the degree of progress which has been achieved, notwithstanding the point which I have made. How-ever, it is, of course, our duty to see that the legislation is adapted to keep pace with the changing needs of an industry in which there are currently some 300,000 men employed.
My Lords, when I moved the First Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House a noble Lord—I think it was the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn—expressed to my noble friend the Leader of the House gratification that this particular piece of legislation was beginning its career in your Lordships' House; and perhaps it is appropriate to recall that a great landmark in the history of the development of safety in the mining industry was the Act of 1850. which like-wise began in your Lordships' House. 588 That was an Act which provided for the appointment of experts to make inspections, both above and below ground, to provide for the notification of all accidents, and for the maintenance of accurate plans of workings. But I think perhaps a more direct ancestor of the present piece of legislation was the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1887, which began the practice to which I have referred, of treating the manager of the mine as solely and personally responsible for its safe operation.
The Act of 1911 continued this process and worked well so long as the industry was effectively in the hands of working proprietors and small private companies, but by the time the Royal Commission on Safety in Coal Mines, under the chairman-ship of Lord Rockley, reported in 1938 it had become evident that the Act of 1911 was not designed to deal with the large-scale industrial organisations which were then in being. Because of the war, the recommendations of the 1938 Royal Commission were not reflected in legislation until the Mines and Quarries Act of 1954. That Act came into operation in 1957, and by that time, of course, the coal mines had been nationalised for a period of ten years.
Following the comments made by Lord Cooper in a case arising out of the Knockshinnoch disaster in 1950, that "everybody's business was nobody's business", the 1954 Act was a good deal more specific about the allocation of duties than the earlier Act had been. Indeed, that Act placed specific duties on a mine manager, but at the same time strengthened his authority against that of officials superior to him by confirming his position as the captain of the ship and giving him the right to refuse to carry out instructions by an owner or his representative unless they were given to him in writing by a properly qualified person.
In the last ten years the emphasis has been changing again. There are fewer mines, but on average they are nearly twice as big as they were ten years ago, producing nearly half a million tons of coal a year each; and indeed 27 of them produce over a million tons. These are large industrial undertakings, by any standard which one cares to apply. At the same time the National Coal Board 589 organisation has been radically changed —changed from a five-tier structure to a three-tier structure, which has tended to make the individual pit rather than the area or the division the effective centre of mining operations. Also within the pits themselves there have been important changes. Faces are fewer but more highly mechanised; mining methods are more sophisticated and more capital intensive. The rate of advance is much greater—a single face may produce 4,000 tons of coal a day or 21,000 tons in a week, which is more than the output of a large colliery ten years or so ago. The number of high production faces has trebled in the past three years and it has now reached a figure well over 100.
To put the matter in another way, the percentage of output from mechanised faces is three times what it was ten years ago. Eighty per cent. of the coal now mined comes from mechanised faces with powered supports, compared with only 3 per cent. some twelve years ago. The equipment of a modern face costs some £250,000, and for economic working plant must, to an increasing degree, be worked on two or even three shifts a day. Naturally, all these changes have placed greater burdens on the individual mine manager, and in the larger units it is now virtually impossible for him to deal personally and unaided with all the matters for which the Mines and Quarries Acts and the Regulations make him responsible.
High outputs and a rapid rate of face advance create their own safety and management problems, and it follows that provision is needed to permit of adequate supervision by men with the requisite standing and qualifications. The experts in the subject—the National Coal Board mining engineers and Her Majesty's Inspectors of Mines—are convinced that many faces require constant supervision on a shift basis by men who have the qualifications and the authority of an under-manager.
I think it may be said that the 1954 Act solved the problems created by the existence of a hierarchy superior to the manager. The Bill now before your Lordships is designed to deal with the new situation within a colliery. It does so quite simply: first, by recognising that a manager needs assistants to help him 590 to carry out his statutory duties, and that in accordance with the tradition and practice of the industry these assistants them-selves need statutory responsibilities if. they are to be effective in a hierarchy where authority and criminal responsibility go hand in hand. Secondly, the Bill recognises that if an under-manager is to work on a shift basis and so to share the responsibility for the whole or a part of the mine with other managers, he must not be held criminally responsible for contraventions of the Acts that occur when he is not on duty, always of course provided that no act or omission of his, showing its effect after he has gone off duty, caused or contributed to the offence.
I think your Lordships will agree that the Bill contains adequate safeguards for all concerned. The position and responsibilities of the mine manager as captain of the ship are unimpaired; certain statutory duties are expressly reserved to him personally; the qualifications of the manager's assistants are to be prescribed by the Minister, and so on. Instructions to managers' assistants and to under-managers need to be in writing if they are to be effective, and thus the principle is preserved that statutory duties and responsibilities should be clearly allocated. The changes which the Bill seeks to make are designed to meet effectively the need which present circumstances create. They have been asked for by the National Coal Board and by the professional bodies who represent managers in the coal industry. I believe the proposals also have the sup-port of the unions representing those who work in the industry, and I trust that they will commend themselves to your Lord-ships. I beg to move.

§ LORD DRUMALBYN
My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, for an extremely interesting speech and a very clear exposition of the Bill—a short Bill, but nevertheless an important one in the development of the authority in the mines. The noble Lord has given us a good background to the Bill and I am only sorry that there were not more people here to listen to it. I had rather expected that we might have had a long, 591 if not really relevant, debate on coal-mining in general, but I see that the ranks that tower above the Bishops are rather empty this afternoon, and one can guess the reason—because of the day of the week.
For my part, although I had coal mines in my constituency and at least know what the inside of a mine looks like and feels like, I cannot claim any technical knowledge of mining. To laymen like myself it probably comes as a surprise that legislative authority is necessary to enable persons to be appointed to assist a mine manager. But on reading the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, which I am sure I have not looked at since 1954, but which every miner soon almost comes to know by heart, I realise the immense importance attached to the placing of responsibility on particular individuals, not only the owner and mine manager but every other official. This responsibility reflects in no uncertain manner the ever present risks of mining and the need for a clear-cut system of control and a chain of responsibility in mining. Safety and health are and must always be the dominant considerations. Your Lord-ships will have been very glad indeed to hear the good news of the declining rate in accidents and deaths per 100,000 man shifts. That is a very remarkable improvement over the years, and I am sure that we all very much welcome it.
I think we all recognise, in the light of what the noble Lord has said, the need for this rather rigid framework to enable a mine manager to appoint assistants responsible to himself with special responsibilities. As I understand it, at present under Section 6 of the 1954 Act he can appoint one or more under-managers; and if there are more than 30 employees below ground he must appoint one unless an inspector notifies him that he need not, and he may have to appoint one although there are fewer than 30 employees below ground if an inspector notifies him that he should. The section lays down that the jurisdiction of an under-manager may be limited to part of a mine, but that, except where the appointment of an under-manager is not required by law, every part of the mine must be within the jurisdiction of an under-manager; that is to say, responsibility for different parts or districts of 592 the mine may be divided between different under-managers but each under-manager has responsibility for all operations carried out in the part of the mine assigned to him, and has them, if I understand the section correctly, for 24 hours in the day.
As I understand it, the purpose of Clause 1 is to enable mine managers to appoint a deputy manager with statutory responsibility for all underground operations for 24 hours a day, to whom the under-managers would be responsible. It would also enable mine managers to appoint a chief technical officer or chief engineer to whom the specialist officers, such as mechanical engineers or electrical engineers, appointed under Section 13 of the 1954 Act, would be responsible. The section would allow the Minister to prescribe by regulation appropriate qualifications for holders of such appointments.
This seems a sensible change, bearing in mind, as the noble Lord indicated, the immense growth in mechanisation and in powered support installations. I understand that whereas only 20 per cent. of the National Coal Board output came from mechanised faces in 1958, 93 per cent. came from such faces in 1968– 69. The noble Lord referred to the output from major long-wall mechanised faces with powered support installations and indicated the very remarkable in-crease from 3 per cent. in 1958 to 80 per cent. at the present time. At the same time, the average size of collieries in terms of output has risen substantially, and I have a figure here of 15 per cent. of the collieries producing over half a million tons in 1958, and well over one-third producing over half a million tons in 1968-69. With so much coal to handle the work and the responsibility of the mine managers have been very greatly increased, and it seems reasonable to allow them to appoint assistants responsible to them of the kind envisaged, and I am sure others as well.
As to Clause 2, this will enable under-managers to be appointed with responsibility for particular shifts, as I under-stand it, as well as for particular parts of the mine. At present, I am told, only overmen can be appointed for particular shifts in a particular part of the mine and the under-manager in charge of that part remains responsible for 24 593 hours a day. According to the statistics that the National Coal Board have kindly provided me with, the number of coal faces being worked in 1968–69 on a three-shift basis was no less than 315, whereas in 1958 there were only nine. That is a very remarkable change, and obviously it means that there is a quite unjustifiable burden on under-managers who have to carry that responsibility for the three shifts over 24 hours in the day.
This is not the occasion to have a general debate on coal mining, and I have confined my remarks to the proposals in the Bill and the reasons for them, as I understand them. I believe these proposals will commend themselves to the House as sensible and practical in view of the developments in coal mining that have taken place since the 1954 Act, and I hope that the Bill will have a speedy passage through your Lordships' House.

§ LORD BYERS
My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this Bill, but as both noble Lords have emphasised and indeed confined their remarks to the coal mining industry, I want to ask one or two questions. The geological environment of this country is such that it is quite possible that very large-scale opencast non-ferrous mines could be found in the future. That would call for the shifting of, say, 20 to 30 million tons of earth a year to extract the low grade ore, on the same sort of scale as in America, Africa and other places, and I notice that there is a reference in the Bill to not giving the statutory responsibility to contractors. One of the ways of dealing with a very large-scale open-cast mine— I am not saying that it is the best way, but it is one way—is to sub-contract the actual earth shifting part of the operation to people well skilled in that kind of operation.
While I do not want to press the Minister to-night, I should like to ask if at some time he would say whether this Bill will be appropriate to those conditions, if a very large-scale, low-grade non-ferrous mine were discovered in this country. Because it is a possibility—I am not saying it is a probability—and it seems to me that somebody might want to look again at this aspect of the problem which deals with contractors.

§ LORD DELACOURT-SMITH
My Lords, perhaps I may briefly reply to the point the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has raised. May I begin by expressing appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for the contribution which he made and for the welcome he gave to the Bill. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, was also expressing a welcome to the Bill, and I appreciate, too, the point that he has made. The general position is that the intention of the Bill, which is applicable to mines, is to give the Minister power to make regulations. It is to be expected that initially the regulations will in fact be applicable in practice only to mines which are run by the National Coal Board, owned and administered by the National Coal Board, and indeed only to the larger mines within that category. But in form the Bill gives power, in the event of changes in circumstances, for the Minister to make regulations under the Bill which may extend more widely than the category to which we foresee the Bill being initially applied. I think that answers the point which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, had in mind.