Sitting of 23 February 1937

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
NEW WRIT.
For the University of Durham, the Victoria University of Manchester, the University of Liverpool, the University of Leeds, the University of Sheffield, the University of Birmingham, the University of Bristol, and the University of Reading, in the room of Sir Reginald Henry Craddock, G.C.I.E., K.C.S.I. (deceased).—[Captain Margesson.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Private Bills (Standing Orders not previously inquired into complied with).
Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bills, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have been complied with, namely:
Brighton, Hove and Worthing Gas Bill.
General Cemetery Bill.
Bills committed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  COAL INDUSTRY.

    BOYS (EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. Shortasked the Secretary for Mines whether, since boys aged 14 are employed in coal pits on unsuitable work, sometimes with fatal results, he will take steps to prevent the coalowners continuing this undesirable practice?
    The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): Some occupations are already barred to boys under a certain age, and when the Royal Commission have made their report and new legisla-
    1802
    tion falls to be introduced, the desirability of imposing further limits on the employment of boys will be carefully considered.

    BUNKER COAL.
    Mr. Leeasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is in a position to report to the House any findings of the conference which he has recently held with various interests in the coal industry and the mercantile shipping upon the question of the use of coal in mercantile vessels in place of oil?
    Captain Crookshank: The conference unanimously resolved that it welcomed the steps taken to bring to the attention of the interests concerned the possibility, in the national interest, of obtaining an increased use of coal for bunkering purposes. With the object of examining the matter in further detail and of formulating proposals designed to secure the object in view, the conference agreed to recommend the setting up, at an early date, of a committee representative of the shipping, coal and marine engineering interests attending the conference. Steps have already been taken to constitute this committee, of which the Under-Secretary for Mines will be chairman.

    REORGANISATION COMMITTEE.
    Mr. Leeasked the Secretary for Mines whether the Coal Reorganisation Committee has been finally disbanded, or whether there is any further report to be issued as to its activities?
    Captain Crookshank: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. With regard to the second, there is no intention of issuing any further report at present.

    EXPLOSIONS.
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Secretary for Mines the number of explosions in coal mines during the last 10 years where loss of life has taken place; and whether he will give separate figures for the day shift, afternoon shift, and night shift?
    Captain Crookshank: During the last 10 years there have been 113 explosions in coal mines involving loss of one or more lives. Of these 39 took place on the day shift, 29 on the afternoon shift, 41 on the night shift and four between shifts.
    Mr. Tinker: According to the figures, the greater number of explosions have taken place on the night shift. Will the hon. and gallant Member press upon his inspectors to make more inspections on the night turn, because in our opinion the regulations are more lax on the night turn than at other times?
    Captain Crookshank: That observation is a matter of opinion, but the House knows that the inspectors are all the time making more and more inspections on other than the day shifts.
    Mr. Hardie: Why should anyone speaking for the Mines Department say that such a question is a matter of opinion, when it is a question of the measurement of the air that passes?
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the Secretary for Mines how 4 many explosions occurred in the coal mines of Great Britain involving the loss of more than one life for the 15 years ended 1920, giving similar figures for the last 15 years?
    Captain Crookshank: The figures are 87 and 91 respectively.
    Mr. Williams: Can the Secretary for Mines say why it is that, with all the precautions that are taken, there are more explosions now than there were 15 years ago? Can he tell us what deductions his Department has reached about the increase in the number of explosions?
    Captain Crookshank: I do not think this is the time for making deductions; it is the time for answering the questions on the Paper, but one deduction which does appear is that while the numbers of explosions involving loss of life are 87 and 91 respectively, the numbers of persons killed are 1,755 and 880, which shows that there has been a drop in the number of fatalities.

    WESTLEIGH COLLIERY COMPANY.
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has had any further communication with the Westleigh Colliery Company; and what is the position with regard to their re-starting?
    Captain Crookshank: I am informed that negotiations between the owners and the workmen are proceeding, but that no agreement has yet been reached.
    Mr. Tinker: Has not the Minister any powers in regard to trying to get owners to open mines?
    Captain Crookshank: No, Sir, not that I know of, but, as I say, negotiations are proceeding between the people most concerned.

    WINTERBANK COLLIERY, SOUTH NORMANTON.
    Mr. Tinkerasked the Secretary for Mines when His Majesty's inspector of mines visited the Winterbank Colliery, South Normanton, to make an underground inspection, and also when the last visit on the afternoon or night shift was made?
    Captain Crookshank: The date of the last underground inspection was 12th January, 1937. With regard to the second part of the question, the colliery was inspected on the afternoon shift of 10th November last.
    Mr. Tinker: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the last inspection made on the night shift was much longer ago than the last inspection on the day shift, and that the explosion on this occasion took place on the night shift?
    Mr. Gallacher: Will the Minister consider making regular workmen's inspections a feature of the administration?
    Captain Crookshank: That is quite another question.

    OIL EXTRACTION (GERMANY).
    Mr. George Hallasked the Secretary for Mines whether he has any information enabling him to state the amount of liquid fuel, with separate figures for light motor fuel and fuel oil, respectively, now produced in Germany from indigenous mineral resources; and what proportions this production represents of the total consumption of these fuels in Germany?
    Captain Crookshank: Official figures of the production of liquid fuels in Germany are not available. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement showing the import of certain petroleum products into Germany during the years 1934–36, from which the hon. Member will see that the importation of petroleum products into Germany is increasing.
    Mr. Hall: Has not the Mines Department any information as to the production of oil from coal in Germany?
    Captain Crookshank: We have no official figures.
    Mr. Hall: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman endeavour to get the information?
    Captain Crookshank: To the best of my knowledge the figures are not available. The hon. Member must remember that in totalitarian States statistics are not given with the same freedom as in other States.
    Mr. Hall: But is the hon. and gallant Gentleman not aware that this information can be obtained from private sources, and surely what is available from private sources ought to be available for a Government Department?
    Mr. James Griffiths: Is the Minister not aware that at any rate the progress in Germany in the production of oil from coal far exceeds that in this country, and ought not that to be considered?
    Mr. Hardie: Is the hon. and gallant Member not aware that figures were contained in the "Petroleum Times" of 19th January?
    Following is the statement:
    Import of certain petroleum products into Germany:

    Product.

    1934.

    1935.

    1936.

    Metric tons.

    Metric tons.

    Metric tons.

    Crude Oil

    276,717

    515,298

    578,865

    Benzine (Petrol).

    1,158,385

    1,224,344

    1,324,652

    Kerosene

    98,261

    75,287

    63,609

    Gas Oil

    630,916

    882,993

    1,081,326

    Fuel Oil

    316,180

    326,316

    379,402

    Total

    2,489,459

    3,024,238

    3,427,854

    PITS (MODERNISATION).
    Mr. Dayasked the Secretary for Mines whether his Department has recently collected any records of the number of pits that have not modernised their equipment and are still using out of date and inefficient apparatus; and what regulations deal with this subject?
    Captain Crookshank: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, matters of safety and health are governed by the Coal Mines Act and Regulations, but there are no regulations in other respects.
    Mr. Day: Can the Minister say whether any reasons have been given to him as to why certain pits have not modernised their equipment and brought it up to date?
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Does not the Minister think it is better to leave this question of the so-called modernisation of pits to be raised in the Debate?

    INLAND CONTRACTS.
    Sir John Mellorasked the Secretary for Mines whether he will make a statement with regard to the direction of the Central Council of Colliery Owners, that no inland contract should be made, beyond 31st March, 1938; and whether he is aware that, in consequence of this direction, certain industrial companies dependent on a supply of coal are unwilling at present to proceed with the erection of new plant?
    Captain Crookshank: This direction is the subject of a complaint now before the National Committee of Investigation set up under Section 5 of the Coal Mines Act, 1930, and I can make no statement at this stage.
    Sir J. Mellor: Does my hon. and gallant Friend consider that it is in the national interest that facilities for making long-term contracts for coal should be available to foreigners and at the same time denied to British manufacturers?
    Captain Crookshank: I have just said that as this is at present the subject of a formal complaint I am not in a position to say what I think about it.

    SUPPLIES (BIRMINGHAM).
    Sir J. Mellorasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of the shortage of coal for industrial purposes in Birmingham; and what steps he proposes to take to ensure that adequate supplies shall be available?
    Captain Crookshank: I am aware that there have recently been some difficulties in obtaining supplies of small coals and slacks in the Birmingham area, the demand for which has increased substantially during the past few months. I understand that the difficulties are largely due to the fact that, owing to the mild weather, there has been a relatively poor demand for large coal for household purposes which governs the quantity of small

    1807
    coal produced. I have impressed upon the colliery owners the need for taking all possible steps to improve the supply of small coal, if necessary, by crushing the larger sizes.
    Sir J. Mellor: Does not my hon. and gallant Friend consider that the shortage is very largely due to restrictions upon output, and does he not think it would be in the national interest that such restrictions should be brought to an end?
    Captain Crookshank: The hon. Member opens up a very large question of debate. All I can say is that his suggestion that the quota regulations had anything to do with this shortage is not the view held by the Cannock Chase Committee of Investigation, which looked into this matter arising out of a complaint made by the Birmingham Corporation Electricity Works. They found it had nothing to do with the quota.

  PETROL (PRICE).
  Mr. Shortasked the Secretary for Mines whether he is aware of the increasing prices of petrol; and whether he will appoint a committee to make inquiry as to whether there is profiteering, or otherwise?
  Captain Crookshank: I am aware that there have been two increases, each of ½d. per gallon, in the price of petrol during the present year. The price of this commodity has fluctuated in recent years, and I see no necessity for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the matter.
  Mr. Short: In the interests of consumers, will the hon. and gallant Member consider the appointment of a price tribunal, before which the petrol companies would have to justify any increase in the price of petrol?
  Mr. G. Hardie: Is the Secretary for Mines not aware of the fact that the refusal to disclose the price at which home-produced petrol can be made gives the opportunity to other firms who import oil to raise prices?
  Captain Crookshank: I have just said that I do not see any necessity for the appointment of a committee at the present
  1808
  time. There have been two increases in price, but it is not as high as it has been in the past?
  Mr. T. Williams: Can the Minister tell us to what price petrol will have to rise before he will make an inquiry?

  DOMINIONS (FOREIGN IMMIGRANTS).
  Sir Patrick Hannonasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether statistics are available of the number of emigrants from foreign countries into Canada in the years 1924, 1929, 1931, and the latest year for which such returns have been prepared?
  The Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Malcolm MacDonald): According to the annual reports of the Canadian Department of Immigration and Colonisation, the number of emigrants from foreign countries into Canada in the years ending 31st March, 1924, 1929, 1931 and 1936, were 72,331, 108,843, 60,639 and 9,054 respectively, Of these, 17,211, 30,560, 24,280 and 5,121 respectively were from the United States of America.
  Sir P. Hannon: Are any negotiations in progress with the Dominion of Canada to substitute as far as possible an excess of British people, instead of all these foreigners who are coming into the Dominion?
  Mr. MacDonald: I cannot add anything to what I said in the Debate.
  Sir P. Hannon: Is not the Minister aware of the strong feeling in Canada that the whole of public life is being infiltrated by all these foreigners?
  Mr. Bellenger: How do the figures roughly compare with the numbers of British immigrants?
  Mr. MacDonald: I have the figures, but as the House will not remember the figures which have already been given, perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question, and then I can give him the comparison.
  Sir P. Hannonasked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can make a statement on the organised effort which is being made in certain foreign countries in Central

  1809
  Europe for the encouragement of emigration to British Dominions and the nature of the subsidies or financial provision made for the settlement of such emigrants in any of our Overseas Dominions?
  Mr. MacDonald: I am not aware that any Government in Central Europe organises the migration of its nationals to British Dominions, or provides a special subsidy for that purpose.
  Sir P. Hannon: Would the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries on this matter, because it is suggested in Canada that there are agencies definitely working towards the introduction of foreigners into Canada from Central European countries; will he make inquiries of the Dominion Government?
  Mr. MacDonald: I think that my answer indicates that no Central European Governments are taking action in this direction. If any private organisation is taking some action of the kind, that is another question.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE.

    HARRIS TWEED (TRADE MARK).
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Harris tweed trade mark, which was originally stamped on a hand-made tweed, is now, through alterations in the regulations in 1934, used as a stamp for tweed which is mill-spun, factory-dyed, factory-finished, and is owned by millowners of the Outer Hebrides; and whether he will take steps, by further regulation or otherwise, to protect the persons engaged in making real hand-made tweed?
    The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Runciman): The hon. Member, no doubt, refers to the certification trade mark for Harris tweed that was registered in the year 1909. Under the regulations that were in force up to the year 1934, the use of this mark was confined to Harris tweed made throughout by hand. Under an amendment of the regulations which was authorised by the Board of Trade in 1934, the cloth must still be woven by hand. The weaving must be done at the islanders' own homes, but the spinning, dyeing and finishing may be done in mills and factories provided they are situated in the Islands. There
    1810
    is a provision in the regulations that if the tweed is made from handspun yarn it shall be further marked "Handspun." I see no reason why any maker of cloth which is hand-made as to dyeing and finishing should not himself indicate these facts on the cloth. As at present advised it does not appear, to me that further regulation is called for.
    Mr. MacMillanasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the words, hand-woven by the islanders in their own homes, occurring in the regulations are being used by advertisers of the tweed manufactured under the 1934 trade mark conditions to suggest that such tweed is a genuine hand-made tweed of the original kind; and whether he will take action to prevent this?
    Mr. Runciman: I have been in communication with the registered proprietors of the mark and I have received assurances which will, I trust, obviate any similar grounds of objection to their future advertisements.

    COTTON INDUSTRY.
    Sir Nairne Stewart Sandemanasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give any estimate of how much the increase in the price of coal since the marketing scheme was introduced has added to the running costs of the cotton trade?
    Mr. Runciman: I regret that I am unable to furnish any such estimate.
    Sir John Haslam: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that it has added considerably to the costs, and will he take the increased cost into consideration when seeing what he can do to assist the cotton trade?
    Sir N. Stewart Sandeman: Is it not a fact that in Lancashire they are saying that Peter is being robbed to pay Paul?

    RUBBER STOCKS.
    Mr. R. C. Morrisonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the decrease of rubber stocks in the United Kingdom during the past year from 158,500 tons to 65,800 tons; and what steps he proposes to take to secure that United Kingdom stocks are adequate to meet any eventuality that may arise?
    Mr. Runciman: I am aware that there bas been a substantial decrease in the stocks of rubber held in the United Kingdom during the last year, but I do not think the present position need cause alarm.
    Mr. Morrison: Is the Minister aware that even since this question was put on the Paper, stocks have fallen by 1,000 tons, and is that a matter of indifference to his Department?

    IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Quibellasked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the fact that the essential raw materials are on the spot at Scunthorpe (Lincolnshire), he will do nothing to discourage the normal extension and development of iron and steel production in this important ironstone area?
    Mr. Runciman: As was stated in the reply given to the hon. Members for Gateshead (Mr. Magnay) and for the Clayton Division (Mr. Jagger) on 3rd February, the Import Duties Advisory Committee are satisfied that the scheme of development which has been announced for this area is necessary and in the national interest.
    Mr. Quibell: Is the Minister aware that this is the extension of an existing steel works and not the establishment of a new one?
    Mr. Runciman: I am not sure whether I can accept that definition of the scheme.
    Sir Percy Harrisasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that many industries, including the building trade and the cutlers and hardware industries, are not able to obtain supplies of steel to meet their requirements, owing to the diversion of steel to armament purposes; and what action he proposes to take to increase supplies?
    Mr. Runciman: It is well known that the greatly increased consumption of steel for many purposes is causing some difficulty in meeting all demands, but production in this country is increasing, and the British Iron and Steel Federation is making every effort to increase supplies.
    Sir P. Harris: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider lowering the duties on imported steel, so that the area of supply may be increased?
    Mr. Runciman: I am afraid that that would not help.
    Miss Wilkinson: Have the Government any plans for a general increase in the production of steel, other than the already proved wrong advice given by the British Iron and Steel Trades. Federation?

    BURMA.
    Mr. Chorltonasked the President of the Board of Trade when the trade negotiations with Burma will begin?
    Mr. Runciman: No date has yet been fixed for beginning trade negotiations with Burma.
    Mr. Chorlton: Will the Minister see that trade representatives are associated with the representatives of his Department in any negotiations?
    Mr. Runciman: That is a different question. We should certainly keep in close touch during the negotiations.

    IMPORTED GOODS.
    Miss Wardasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his Department is in possession of a complete list of goods imported into this country which could be manufactured here?
    Mr. Runciman: No, Sir. Only the manufacturing interests concerned are in a position to say whether or not it is practicable to manufacture any particular goods in this country.
    Miss Ward: In view of the fact that the establishment of new industries appears to be the solution of the Special Areas problem, and that industrial advisers were appointed by the Government to assist the Special Commissioner, would the Minister consider having inquiries made on the subject in order that the industrial advisers might be in full possession of all the data necessary?
    Mr. Runciman: We are always ready and anxious to obtain information on any of these subjects, and if the hon. Lady has any particular industry in which she is interested, we shall be glad to hear from her.
    Miss Ward: The Special Areas are interested in all industries. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the decision which he has announced?
    Mr. Runciman: I am well aware of the necessity of establishing industries in the Special Areas, but not all industries are suitable for all areas.
    Miss Ward: Will the right hon. Gentleman have the information made available?

    COMPENSATION BROKERS, LIMITED.
    Mr. Ellis Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade when, and to whom, the undertaking was given by Compensation Brokers, Limited; what method of regulation of the business is contemplated; what steps are contemplated in the undertaking; and whether he will furnish a copy of the undertaking to Members of the House?
    Mr. Runciman: The undertaking was given in the course of conversation with officials. Subsequently, in a statement issued to the Press, the company stated:
    "Compensation Brokers, Limited, proposes to work in close contact with British industry in order to ensure that additional German exports will not divert trade from the United Kingdom."
    I am sending the hon. Member a copy of a brochure issued by the company stating the aims and objects of the company.
    Mr. Smith: Is the President satisfied that this arrangement is in the interests of the future of British trade?
    Mr. Runciman: Yes, Sir, we are satisfied of that, but of course, we shall watch the proceedings.
    Mr. R. C. Morrison: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to give the list of shareholders of Compensation Brokers, Limited?
    Mr. Runciman: That should be the subject of another question.
    Mr. Thurtle: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the patriotism of Messrs. Schroeder is of the highest kind?

    GERMAN MACHINERY (IMPORTS).
    Mr. E. Smithasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state in hundredweights the amount of machinery imported into Britain from Germany during the years 1929, 1935, and 1936, respectively; and the amounts for the same period imported from the Ruhr?
    Mr. Runciman: Total imports into the United Kingdom of machinery consigned from Germany amounted to 36,600 tons in 1929, 24,000 tons in 1935 and 31,900 tons in 1936. Particulars of imports from the Ruhr are not separately recorded.

    GLYCERINE (PRICE).
    Mr. T. Williamsasked the President of the Board of Trade the price per hundredweight of pure glycerine in September, 1936, and the price at the latest date for which figures are available?
    Mr. Runciman: According to information published in the "Chemical Trade journal and Chemical Engineer," the price of glycerine, described as "industrial white, s.g. 1260," was £53 per ton in September, 1936, and £88 per ton on 17th February, 1937. The prices relate to lots of five tons; prices per hundredweight are not quoted.
    Mr. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what are the possible reasons for this excessive increase within a short space of time?
    Mr. Runciman: I cannot give all the reasons, but no doubt increased demand has led to a rise in prices.
    Mr. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman say to what extent rearmament is responsible, to what extent it is sheer profiteering, and what steps the Government are taking to prevent a further increase in the price of this very necessary commodity?

    EGGS (IMPORTS).
    Mr. Turtonasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will make representations to the Governments of Poland, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands to restrict their import of eggs into this country during the year 1937 to the quantity imported in the year 1935?
    Mr. Runciman: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Captain Heilgers) on 9th February.
    Mr. Turton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during his absence in America the imports from these countries increased to such an extent that they nearly wrecked the industry; and will he take steps to see that that does not happen again?
    Mr. Runciman: I cannot think that my absence in America had anything to do with it.
    Mr. Turtonasked the President of the Board of Trade the quantity of eggs imported from Uruguay during the year 1936?
    Mr. Runciman: During the year 1936, the number of eggs imported into the United Kingdom and consigned from Uruguay was 249,000 great hundreds.
    Mr. Turton: Cannot we do without these eggs?

    UNITED STATES (CONVERSATIONS).
    Sir P. Harrisasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is now in a position to make a statement as to the result of his visit to the United States of America; and whether there is any immediate prospect of a trade agreement being come to with that country?
    Mr. Runciman: I have nothing to add to the answer which I gave to the hon. Member and to the hon. Member for Dorset, East (Mr. Hall-Caine) on 9th February. I shall not fail to inform the House if the exploratory discussions now in progress reach a stage at which I can usefully make a further statement.
    Sir P. Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that he will be able to make a statement before Easter?
    Mr. Runciman: I could not say.

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS ACT, 1927.
  Mr. Dayasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he will now give particulars of the Government's decision of the amendments to be introduced in the Cinematograph Films Act, 1927; and when it is proposed to introduce this legislation?
  Mr. Runciman: I am unable to add anything to the reply which was given on this subject to the hon Member on 16th February.
  Mr. Day: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the delay in making the announcement is causing very serious injury to British film production, and has he noticed that another one of the premier British film studios is having to close down?

  POULTRY INDUSTRY (BANKRUPTCIES).
  Mr. Roland Robinsonasked the President of the Board of Trade how many bankruptcies have occurred in Great Britain during the past 12 months in poultry-farming concerns; how many of the bankrupt concerns have been in existence for three years or more; and how many of them had operated at a profit?
  Mr. Runciman: Of the 14 poultry farmers in England and Wales who became bankrupt in 1936, nine had been in business for three years or more, and in five of these cases there is information showing that they had at some time operated at a profit. I regret that corresponding information in regard to Scotland is not readily available.
  Sir Joseph Lamb: Is the president of the Board of Trade aware that large numbers of small ones do not go bankrupt, but simply fade out?
  Mr. R. Robinsonasked the Minister of Agriculture the chief causes of bankruptcies among poultry-farming concerns during the past 12 months?
  Mr. Runciman: I have been asked to reply. There were 14 cases of poultry farmers in England and Wales bankrupt in 1936. In the majority of these the debtors attributed their failure largely to losses through disease amongst their stock. In the remaining cases the causes given were mainly unconnected with their business of poultry farming.
  Mr. Robinson: In view of the acute distress prevailing in the poultry farming industry, is it not time that Government consideration should be replaced by action?
  Mr. Runciman: I was asked for the figures which I have given, and anything in the matter of policy should be addressed to the Minister of Agriculture.
  Mr. Maxton: Can the Minister give the figures of bankruptcies among Scottish poultry farmers?
  Mr. Runciman: I do not think that they are kept separately, but I will inquire.
  Sir P. Hannon: In view of the very strong feeling throughout the country on the present position in the poultry industry, when will the President of the

  1817
  Board of Trade be able to make a statement to the House on the policy which His Majesty's Government intend to pursue to save this industry from bankruptcy?
  Mr. Rathbone: Are these figures applicable to England and Wales only, or applicable to England, Wales and Scotland?
  Mr. Runciman: England and Wales, but not Scotland or Northern Ireland.
  Mr. de Rothschild: Can the right hon. Gentleman state the proportion of the failures to the total number of poultry farmers?

  MERCANTILE MARINE.
  Lieut.-Commander Tufnellasked the President of the Board of Trade whether any advice has been tendered to the Government as to the adequacy of our mercantile marine in time of war; and on whom the Government relies for such advice?
  Mr. Runciman: As my hon. and gallant Friend is aware, the Board of Trade is the Department primarily responsible for advising the Government on matters affecting the mercantile marine. My Department has under constant review the question of the adequacy of the mercantile marine in all circumstances.

  BRITISH ARMY.

    CONTRACTORS. (BEDEAUX AND TAYLOR SYSTEMS).
    Mr. Hardieasked the Secretary of State for War whether the Bedeaux system or the Taylor system is employed in any of the works or factories receiving contracts from his Department?
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Duff Cooper): I have no precise information regarding the extent to which these systems are employed by War Department contractors, but I understand that a number of contractors make use of the Bedeaux system or some modification of it.
    Mr. Hardie: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand the destruction of the nervous system that takes place among workers who are so treated; and will he take steps now to save the nervous
    1818
    system of people whom he may require before long, so that he may have these men with completely unbroken nerve, instead of men with nerves shattered by a stupid system?

    TIME-EXPIRED SOLDIERS (RE-ENLISTMENT).
    Mr. Dayasked the Secretary of State for War what special inducements, if any, are offered to time-expired soldiers to re-enlist in the Service?
    Mr. Cooper: Time-expired soldiers, if in other respects eligible and unmarried, are permitted to re-enlist up to the age of 30, compared with the normal age of 25. They are also allowed to reckon previous service for pension purposes provided that re-enlistment takes place within five years of their last discharge and that their former service is declared on re-enlistment. Soldiers serving in the Territorial Army may also be accepted up to their 28th birthday, provided they have completed at least two years' service in that Force.
    Mr. Day: Does that apply to all branches of the Service?

  TERRITORIAL ARMY.

    CADET CORPS.
    Sir William Davisonasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the desirability of the formation of cadet corps for youths from 15 to 18 in connection with the various Territorial battalions throughout the country, so that boys on leaving school may have the advantage of the physical training which is available at Territorial headquarters, and may realise the duties and advantages in connection with service in the Territorial Force of their county or city when they reach 18?
    Mr. Cooper: The question of official recognition of the cadet movement is now under review, as an outcome of which it is possible that steps will be taken to improve the facilities at present available. I would point out, however, that, so far as I am aware, membership of cadet corps is already open to youths of 15 to 18, and that the affiliation of such units to Territorial Army battalions is already permitted.
    Sir W. Davison: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great success of some

    1819
    voluntarily maintained cadet corps in connection with Territorial battalions, both in improving the boys' health and physique and in furnishing a recruiting ground for the Territorial battalions?
    Mr. Bellenger: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to make a statement on this and congnate matters?
    Mr. Cooper: When I introduce the Army Estimates.

    OFFICER'S STATEMENT {EDINBURGH).
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware of the public statement made at the Tattoo in Edinburgh on 13th February by Lieut.-Colonel A. C. Hope, commanding officer of the 4th/5th (Q.E.) Battalion, the Royal Scots, that what the young men of this country were required for was not to protect the League of Nations but to protect Great Britain; and whether action has been or will be taken to inform this officer how to interpret Government policy?
    Mr. Cooper: My attention has been drawn to a Press report of this incident, but I have no official information. As, however, it has repeatedly been made clear that His Majesty's Government does not regard its responsibility for the defence of this country as in any way inconsistent with its responsibility as a member of the League of Nations or with its desire to enforce the League's authority, I do not think any action of the nature suggested in the second part of the question is called for.
    Mr. Mathers: Will the answer that the right hon. Gentleman has just read be forwarded to this officer, in order that he may know that the policy of the Government is as stated by the Foreign Secretary and homologated by the Prime Minister last Thursday?
    Mr. Radford: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the statement alleged to have been made by that officer was one that would appeal to patriotic Scotsmen?
    Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: Should not this officer, who is not a politician, be commended for speaking the truth?
    Lieut.-Colonel Moore: Is not Britain a good place to defend?

  THE CORONATION.
  Mr. Smedley Crookeasked the Secretary of State for War whether companies of the National Defence units will be represented at the forthcoming Coronation?
  Mr. Cooper: I am afraid that it will not be practicable to arrange for the representation of companies of the National Defence units at the Coronation, but members of those units will, no doubt, take advantage of the ample arrangements which are being made for the attendance of ex-service organisations as spectators at the Coronation processions or as participants in the proposed review of ex-service personnel.
  Mr. Smedley Crooke: In view of the fact that these men rallied to the Colours in the Great War, and are also prepared to give their further services, w ill not my right hon. Friend reconsider this reasonable application?

  SCOTLAND.

    HOUSING.
    Mr. Westwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is yet in a position to state when the Department of Health will be able to issue the model set of building by-laws as provided for in Section 70 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1935, for the guidance of the Scottish local authorities?
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): Drafts of the model sets of building by-laws for burghs and counties respectively have been considered by the appropriate Consultative Council, and certain amendments suggested by the Consultative Council are at present being considered by the technical staff of the Department of Health. I hope that both sets will be issued to local authorities within three months.
    Mr. Westwood: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at least one authority was promised this model set of by-laws for January?
    Mr. Wedderburn: I do not think that that is so. The drafts were issued a long time ago to a number of bodies whose comments were desired, including the Sanitary Inspectors' Association, and the comments from all those bodies were not

    1821
    received until the end of December. The drafts are now being reconsidered in the light of those comments.
    Mr. Westwood: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one local authority—that of Kirkcaldy—was preparing its own bylaws, but was advised to withhold them for a time, as the new model by-laws would be ready by the month of January?
    Mr. Wedderburn: I am afraid they have been misinformed, because they will not be ready for some time.
    Mr. Guyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Edinburgh Corporation has submitted any revised proposals to the Department of Health for the building of new houses?
    Mr. Wedderburn: The Corporation have submitted provisional proposals for the erection during 1937–38 of 1,250 houses, including 346 houses already approved.
    Mr. Guy: Does not my hon. Friend consider that in view of the slow progress made by the Corporation last year with new housing construction it will be necessary for them to try some alternative type of construction so that they might complete their programme?
    Mr. Boothby: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the number of houses projected is sufficient?
    Mr. Wedderburn: It represents a considerable advance on last year's record and on most recent years, but it is not certain that it will be carried out. It depends on the supply of building labour, which the Corporation has said is very doubtful.
    Mr. Guy: Does not that make all the more important the question of alternative types of construction?
    Major Neven-Spence (for Sir Douglas Thomson)asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will give such directions under Clause 28 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, as will preserve the street elevations of the seventeenth and eighteenth century houses still remaining in the Royal Mile in Edinburgh?
    Mr. Wedderburn: My right hon. Friend recently discussed with representatives of Edinburgh Corporation the problem of houses in the Royal Mile affected by their housing operations and he is considering
    1822
    certain suggestions for the preservation of these houses.
    Major Neven-Spence (for Sir D. Thomson)asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, in how many cases in Scotland directions, under Section 28 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1930, have been given by his Department; and whether he can give details?
    Mr. Wedderburn: No directions under Section 28 have been given by the Department of Health up to the present. The Department are, however, in constant communication with local authorities in order to secure improvement in the artistic quality of new housing schemes and to ensure that local amenities and features of architectural or historic interest are preserved.

    JUVENILE COURTS.
    Mr. Westwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many authorities in Scotland have set up juvenile courts as provided for under the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1932; whether he is satisfied with the progress made in setting up these courts; and what action he proposes to induce and encourage other authorities to set up these courts?
    Mr. Wedderburn: Orders have been made applying Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1932, to the counties of Renfrew and Fife. Progress, I think, has been disappointing, but I hope that further action will be possible after the decision in the appeal which has been lodged concerning certain legal difficulties involved in the working of juvenile courts.
    Mr. Westwood: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Fife case to which he refers has now been delayed for over 18 months and can he give the House any indication when it is likely to be determined?
    Mr. Wedderburn: No, it was coming up in December on appeal to the House of Lords. I hope it will come up fairly soon, but I cannot give a definite date.

    WOMEN JUSTICES, STIRLINGSHIRE.
    Mr. Westwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of women justices of the peace for the county of Stirling, including the two large burghs; what percentage this represents

    1823
    of the total number of justices for the county; and whether he is satisfied with the same?
    Mr. Wedderburn: There are 14 women justices of the peace, which is 7½ per cent. of the total number of justices for the county. In each place where the justices courts sit there are one or more women justices available, but if the public interest requires the appointment of further women justices, I have no doubt the Advisory Committee will give careful consideration to the matter.

    ISLAND OF LEWIS (EMPLOYMENT).
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that, while certain communities in the Island of Lewis have found employment as a result of the recent increased demand for Harris tweed, yet thousands of people have lost their livelihood from the same industry in the Lochs district of Lewis, which is the seat of the industry; whether he can state the reasons for the disastrous plight of the lochs people; and what steps he proposes to take to assist them?
    Mr. Wedderburn: I have no information which would appear to support the hon. Member's statement that thousands of people in the Lochs district of Lewis have lost their livelihood. I am, however, aware that the increase of the Harris tweed industry in recent years has brought with it substantial benefits to the island generally. If the hon. Member cares to send me his evidence of distress in the Lochs district, I will look further into the matter.

    PETROL PURCHASE, GLASGOW CORPORATION.
    Mr. Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether his attention has been drawn to the decision of the Glasgow Corporation to purchase 1,250,000 gallons of petrol from Russian Oil Products in preference to obtaining it from British firms; and whether in view of the fact that the placing abroad of such orders adversely affects the employment of British workers, he will take any steps in the matter?
    Mr. Wedderburn: I am informed that the transport committee of the Corporation of Glasgow recently accepted an offer by Russian Oil Products, Limited, to
    1824
    supply 1,250,000 gallons of petrol at is. 0⅞d. per gallon, as compared with is. 15/16d. per gallon offered by the National companies. The difference in the price is thus 1/16d. per gallon. The total expenditure involved in the contract is over £67,000. Local authorities' arrangements in such matters are not subject to Government control but my right hon. Friend is making inquiries as to whether the placing of this contract will affect adversely the employment of British workers, and if so he will communicate with the Corporation on the subject.
    Mr. Anstruther-Gray: Is there nothing that my hon. Friend can do, as the difference in price is so small, to impress upon the Socialist local authority the importance, when spending public money, of doing so in a way which will help British trade and British workers rather than foreigners?
    Mr. Wedderburn: I think it is advisable to ascertain exactly how far this would adversely affect the employment of British workers and, after those inquiries, my right hon. Friend will be quite willing to make representations to the Corporation.
    Mr. Mothers: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, if this order had been placed with British firms, it would not have been supplied out of oil produced in this country but entirely out of imported oil, and that the position of British oil workers would not have been affected one iota?
    Mr. Wedderburn: That is why I said my right hon. Friend is making inquiries as to whether the placing of this contract will affect adversely the employment of British workers.

    HOSTELS (EDINBURGH).
    Mr. Guyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Edinburgh Corporation has submitted any proposals to the Department of Health for the construction of a hostel or hostels for single persons?
    Mr. Wedderburn: The Corporation provided three hostels for single persons prior to 1935. No subsequent proposals have been submitted.

    PRIVATE ROADS (CAIRNBULG AND INVERALLOCHY).
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware

    1825
    that the condition of the private roads in the villages of Cairnbulg and Inverallochy is so bad as to endanger both the safety and the health of the inhabitants; that both the owners and the district council have hitherto refused to take any action in the matter, and that re-housing schemes are being held up in consequence; and whether he proposes to take any steps to deal with the situation?
    Mr. Wedderburn: I am informed that some of the private roads in the villages in question are in bad condition, but that the main road through the villages has been placed on the list of county highways and is maintained by the county council. I am not aware that housing schemes are being held up in consequence of the condition of the roads referred to. The powers of a district council as regards the repair and maintenance of public ways are optional, and my right hon. Friend has no power to require a district council to take action.

    POULTRY INDUSTRY.
    Mr. Mathersasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has given consideration to the plans for meeting the immediate requirements of the Scottish poultry industry; whether he can state what remedies the Government propose; and when these will be applied?
    Mr. Wedderburn: I have nothing at present to add to my right hon. Friend's reply to the hon. Member last Tuesday and the reply of my hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions last Wednesday to the, hon. Member for Devizes (Sir P. Hurd).
    Mr. Mathers: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether representations have now been made by the Scottish Poultry Council, and is he aware that in one small part of my own constituency over 50 poultry farmers have gone out of business this year, disposing of their fowls at a very serious loss?
    Mr. Wedderburn: I think my right hon. Friend said on Tuesday that he would be glad to consider any representations from the poultry industry.
    Mr. Hardie: Does the Under-Secretary still consider that all this is due to hens being hens?

  BEER, WINE AND SPIRITS.
  Mr. Jenkinsasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the quantities of beer, wine and spirits retained for consumption in Northern Ireland during the calendar year 1936 and the amount of the revenue attributable to such beverages?
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Chamberlain): As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:

  Article.

  Quantities retained for consumption.

  Revenue attributable to Northern Ireland.

  Proof gallons.

  £

  Spirits

  241,000

  857,000

  Beer

  Standard barrels 162,000

  601,000

  Bulk barrels 202,000

  Wine, including British Wine.

  720,000

  130,000

  Mr. Sorensenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amount of the Excise and Customs duty on beer and wine, including British wines, spirits and hops, attributable to Great Britain during the calendar year 1936?
  Mr. Chamberlain: As the answer involves a table of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  Following is the answer:

  Article and Revenue attributable to Great Britain.

  £

  Spirits

  …

  34,653,000

  Beer

  …

  61,352,000

  Wine, including British wine

  …

  5,248,000

  Hops

  …

  141,000

  DISARMAMENT.
  Mr. Leachasked the Prime Minister the conditions under which the Government would be prepared to proceed with a policy of disarmament?
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Baldwin): I would refer the hon. Member to the reference to disarmament made in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the

  1827
  Assembly of the League of Nations on 25th September last, and to the statement made by the United Kingdom delegate to the Third Committee of the Assembly in October. The conditions on which His Majesty's Government are prepared to proceed with a policy of disarmament emerge clearly from these statements, of which a full summary is contained in Cmd. 5365 of 31st December, 1936.
  Mr. Leach: Will the right hon. Gentleman see to it that these declarations of his Ministers are followed up by definite action on the part of the Government before he finally leaves his distinguished office?
  The Prime Minister: I think the whole question is a very difficult one to discuss by way of question and answer. There will undoubtedly be an opportunity shortly of another Foreign Office Debate, and perhaps the hon. Member will raise the question.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REFRESHMENT DEPARTMENT).
  Mr. Thurtleasked the hon. and gallant Member for Ipswich, as Chairman of the Kitchen Committee, whether, in view of the fact that the refreshment department of County Hall, the headquarters of the London County Council, has abolished the practice of tipping and has placed all its waiting staff on a trade union basis of pay and conditions, he will give consideration to the possibility of introducing a similar change in the Refreshment Department of this House?
  Sir John Ganzoni: The committee is sympathetic to the hon. Member's suggestion for the abolition of tipping but this is impracticable as the wages of the waiting staff would have to be raised all round. The extra cost would have to be passed on to hon. Members in the form of increased charges unless the Treasury were to restore the annual subvention withdrawn in 1922, or preferably were to defray the cost of staff and equipment as in other departments of this House. There is no analogy between the House of Commons with its 156 sitting days last year and the County Hall where the waitresses serve 1,200 luncheons on every working day of the year to all
  1828
  officials and clerical staff on the premises as well as to members of the London County Council.
  Mr. Thurtle: Will the hon. Baronet consider the two possible solutions of this problem indicated in the course of his reply; and will he also consider the system in vogue in the Royal Courts of Justice for tipping the staff, where, I understand, there is no difficulty about tipping?
  Mr. A. V. Alexander: May I ask the Minister of Labour, arising out of this position, whether he will not invite the Kitchen Committee of the House to meet him along with the employers he is to meet with regard to a minimum wage in the distributive trades?
  Sir J. Ganzoni: I would point out, in reply to the hon. Member who put the original question, that there is no analogy between the position at the Law Courts and here. The committee has made inquiries, but there the system is entirely different. They place a box in every room of which considerable use is made. The supplementary question of the right hon. Gentleman opposite was not addressed to me.
  Mr. Paling: In view of the large number of years during which these complaints have been made and that all Members of the House thoroughly dislike the system, is it not within the capacity of the Kitchen Committee to evolve some solution?

  AGRICULTURE.

    BEET SUGAR FACTORY (PEMBROKESHIRE).
    Mr. Louis Smithasked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the public inquiry into the establishment of a beet sugar factory in West Wales, the Government will, before giving effect to it, consider its repercussions upon the beet sugar industry in England and Scotland; and whether, for that purpose, it will consult the different agricultural organisations in the country?
    Mr. Maxwellasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will inquire into the proposal of the Sugar Commission to erect a beet sugar factory in Pembroke-shire, seeing that such a step would entail reducing the acreage allotted to existing factories?
    The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Ramsbotham): I have been asked to reply. Acting on a request made by my right hon. Friend's predecessor, the Sugar Commission are investigating the possibility of establishing a beet sugar factory in Pembrokeshire, and I have no doubt that in their consideration of this question the commission will bear in mind the interests of growers in Great Britain generally.
    Mr. Smith: Should an additional factory be established, will the Minister consider increasing the total acreage in the country allowed for subsidy?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: The question of whether it has repercussions on the rest of the industry will be considered primarily by the Commission, and finally by my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Leach: Before the Minister takes any action in the direction of giving further fresh subsidies to beet-sugar factories, will he consult with the West Indies, which are so greatly affected?

    GOVERNMENT POLICY.
    Mr. Boothbyasked the Minister of Agriculture what further measures His Majesty's Government propose to take to restore the agricultural industry of this country to its full productive capacity; and whether consideration will be given to a scheme designed to maintain and, if possible, increase the production of oats by securing that the price shall not again fall below the cost of production level?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: The Government will continue their policy of increasing the efficiency of home agriculture, but my right hon. Friend is not in a position to announce any further measures at the present time.
    Mr. Boothby: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Minister gave an undertaking to a deputation of Scottish farmers last summer that the Government would give special consideration to this question? Are they considering it, and, if so, when will my hon. Friend be able to make a statement of the Government's intentions?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: Every possible method of assistance to oat growers has received consideration, and I would remind my hon. Friend that, compared with this week last year, the average price per cwt. of oats in Scotland last year was 4s. 10d., and this week the price is 7s. 6d.
    Mr. Boothby: That does not affect the position.
    Mr. Paling: Has the Minister calculated what it would cost in subsidies to bring the agricultural industry up to full capacity?

    WEEDS.
    Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyteasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that considerable damage is done to market gardens and other agricultural land by the seeds of weeds, especially those growing on undeveloped building plots and other waste land; and whether he will consider amending the schedule to the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Act, 1921, to include all weeds, and to enlarge the present powers of county councils to enable more prompt and effective action to be taken to prevent injury to adjacent land?
    Mr. Ramsbotham: The attention of the Ministry is drawn from time to time to cases of damage to agricultural land by the seeds of weeds, including weeds growing on undeveloped building plots and other waste land. Such cases are brought to the notice of the county agricultural committees, to whom the Ministry's powers under the Schedule to the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Act, 1921, have been delegated. My right hon. Friend has no reason to believe that any weeds other than those scheduled are causing serious damage, or that county agricultural committees are in need of further powers to enable them to take more prompt and effective action.
    Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Is my hon. Friend aware that market gardeners suffer very much from the seeds of smaller weeds which are not mentioned in the Schedule, and will be consider amending it?
    Mr. T. Williams: Could not the Minister solve this problem by taxing unused plots of land?

  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.
  Sir N. Stewart Sandemanasked the Postmaster-General how many broadcasts have been given during the past year for the benefit of the Dominions, Crown Colonies, and territories under our protection, exclusive of the Christmas Empire broadcast?
  The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): I am informed by the British Broadcasting Corporation that daily programmes were broadcast last year from their Empire Station at Daventry for a total period of 17¼ hours out of every 24 hours to all parts of the Empire by means of six separate transmissions, each timed to suit the countries to which it was primarily directed.
  Sir N. Stewart Sandemanasked the Postmaster-General whether he has ever required the British Broadcasting Corporation to refrain from broadcasting on any particular subject in pursuance of his powers under the Charter and Licence?
  Sir W. Womersley: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave yesterday to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Paddington, South (Vice-Admiral Taylor).

  UNEMPLOYMENT FUND SURPLUS (WAITING PERIOD, REDUCTION).
  Mr. Lawsonasked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make on the report of the Statutory Committee?
  The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): As the House is aware, the Unemployment Insurance Statutory Committee have reported that the General Account of the Unemployment Fund has again a disposable surplus of a substantial amount and have therefore recommended by a majority that the waiting period for the receipt of benefit should be reduced from six to three days and that there should be a relaxation of the conditions under which more than 156 days of benefit may be drawn in the benefit year. The Government have decided to adopt this recommendation and the necessary Resolution will be tabled immediately, with a view to making the reduction in the waiting period effective from 1st April.
  Mr. Lawson: Has the right hon. Gentleman given attention to that part of the report in which the Committee are shown to be paying 3 per cent. for loans, and getting only a little over 1 per cent. interest?
  Mr. Brown: There are many interesting points in the report, which I hope the whole House will read. But these
  1832
  are the recommendations of the Committee, and they have been accepted, and I should have thought that
  "Even the ranks of Tuscany
  Could scarce forbear to cheer."
  Mr. Maxton: Can the Minister say what is the estimated cost of these two concessions?
  Mr. Brown: The estimated cost of the two concessions is just over £17,000,000 over an eight-year period, £2,250,000 a year.
  Mr. Maxton: Is not that a very small fraction of the total savings?
  Mr. Brown: The other part of the savings, as the hon. Member knows, is held in reserve against a period of depression, so that we may not have to cut benefits or increase contributions.
  Mr. Lawson: Is that the use the Government intend to make of the surplus?
  Mr. Brown: There have been similar reports which have been discussed in this House on previous occasions, but this is the recommendation of the Statutory Committee which we have adopted.

  DEFENCE.

    RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENT.
    Lieut.-Commander Tufnellasked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether there is a special or separate department which undertakes research into and investigation of all inventions which may be of service to any branch of the Fighting Forces; and, if not, whether he will consider creating such a section?
    The Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence (Sir Thomas Inskip): The Defence Departments have their own research and experimental branches. They work in close touch with each other and special arrangements are made by the appointment of joint committees, where this is thought desirable, for the consideration of particular subjects.

    CAIRD SHIPYARD, GREENOCK.
    Mr. Mathers (for Mr. R. Gibson)asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether the Government have been in negotiation for the utilisation of the derelict Caird shipyard site at Greenock; and whether a statement can now be made as to the position?
    Sir T. Inskip: The Government have not been in negotiation for the utilisation of the derelict Caird shipyard site at Greenock. The second part of the question does not, therefore, arise.

  HOUSING (EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS).
  Mr. W. A. Robinsonasked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the position which will arise on 31st March, 1938, when the present arrangements as to Exchequer contributions in respect of the provision of re-housing accommodation for persons displaced from houses dealt with by local authorities under the Housing Act, 1936, will have expired; and, having regard to the fact that many local authorities will not have completed their housing programme by such date, will he give an assurance that they will not suffer financially in a review of the Exchequer contributions which is required to be made under the said Act?
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. R. S. Hudson): I am not at present in a position to go beyond the answer given by my right hon. Friend in reply to a similar question asked on 21st January by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith).

  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  Mr. Kirbyasked the Minister of Pensions the number of men in Liverpool in receipt of service pensions who died during the year 1936; what number left widows; and how many of such widows qualified for widows' pensions from his Department?
  Mr. Ramsbotham: I regret that the records of my Department do not enable the figures required to be given for particular localities.

  AIR RAID PRECAUTIONS (FIRE BRIGADE SERVICES).
  Mr. Sandys(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in view of the forthcoming Debate on the Defence Loans Bill, he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the measures proposed for supplementing the fire brigade services to
  1834
  meet the dangers of incendiary attack from the air.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir John Simon): A memorandum on emergency fire brigade organisation is being issued to-day to local authorities for their guidance in preparing local emergency fire brigade schemes. The organisation suggested will involve the accumulation in peace-time of large stocks of emergency fire-fighting appliances, including high-power pumping units and trailer pumps, together with hose and other equipment. It will also be necessary to prepare in advance for the establishment of emergency fire stations and of a system of patrol units and fire posts to keep all streets under frequent observation and to be in a position to attack incipient fires without delay. For these purposes large numbers of auxiliary personnel will require to be recruited and trained in peace-time with a view to whole-time or part-time service with the fire brigades in an emergency.
  The Government are considering representations from the local authorities as to the incidence of the cost of any necessary air raid precautions and emergency fire brigade measures. Pending a decision on this question, the Government are undertaking to provide in kind approved types of appliances, with hose and equipment, up to a proportion of the local authorities' requirements under their approved local emergency schemes, and grants will be made towards the cost of the initial training and equipment of auxiliary personnel. Appropriate provision will be made in the forthcoming Estimates. Details of the Exchequer assistance under these heads are given in a circular which is also being issued to-day to local authorities. This circular and the Memorandum already referred to are being placed on sale, and copies are being placed in the Library of the House.
  Mr. Sandys: Whilst thanking the right hon. Gentleman for a most satisfactory statement, may I ask him whether in view of his promise of extensive Exchequer assistance the Government will have a certain measure of control over the manner in which local authorities carry out these schemes?
  Sir J. Simon: The scheme is at this stage, at any rate, one where appliances and apparatus are being provided in kind.

  1835
  The Government are providing the stocks of material and that gives a very definite measure of control.
  Sir J. Lamb: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the scheme arranges for provision being made for the whole country, including outlying rural areas, where food may be stored?
  Sir J. Simon: The needs of the whole country are being surveyed, but I do not think it will follow that every corner of this island is in an equally anxious state.
  Mr. Westwood: Will the Home Secretary state whether his answer applies to Scottish local authorities as well as to English local authorities?
  Sir J. Simon: We do not draw a line on this occasion between England and Scotland.
  Mr. Westwood: May I ask whether the provision of assistance is to apply to the Scottish authorities as to the English authorities?
  Sir J. Simon: Yes. I intended to say that.
  Mr. Bellenger: Will this greatly expanded service still be under the administration of the local authorities, as at present, or will there be any co-ordination, for instance, in the larger towns?
  Sir J. Simon: Local management remains, but there is in preparation a system of regional organisation, which will tend to bring about co-operation between the different units.
  Mr. R. C. Morrison: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that it is very difficult for the local authorities to make up their minds definitely on this matter until they know the complete scheme of the Government? Will the right hon. Gentleman do what he can to see that, instead of the local authorities being advised in bits and pieces about the scheme at the time they will know the complete proposals of the Government?
  Sir J. Simon: If the hon. Member will look at the Memorandum which is being issued to-day he will see that that is by no means overlooked.
  Sir J. Haslam: The right hon. Gentleman speaks about material for the fire
  1836
  brigades. Will he remember that there are vast numbers of voluntary fire brigades connected with works throughout the country, and will he see that these people are taken into consideration and brought within the scheme in some way or other? They do not need material, but I think they need financial assistance.
  Sir J. Simon: If the hon. Member will look at the Memorandum I think he will see that a very important part of it is that which deals with auxiliary personnel. It would be desirable to study the Memorandum. It is very difficult without reading it at length to get a conception of the whole scheme.

  CIVIL AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (ESTIMATES, 1937).
  Estimate presented,—for Civil and Revenue Departments for the year ending 31st March, 1938, with Memorandum [by Command]; Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.
  CIVIL AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1937 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT).
  Estimate presented,—showing the several Services for which a Vote on Account is required for the year ending 31st March, 1938 [by Command]: Referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed.
  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

    STANDING COMMITTEE B.
    Colonel Gretton reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from Standing Committee B: Captain Strickland; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Hamilton Kerr.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to—
Regency Bill, with Amendments.
That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Greenock Burgh Extension, etc." [Greenock Burgh Extension, etc., Order Confirmation Bill [Lords.]

REGENCY BILL.
Lords Amendments to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed [Bill 91.]
GREENOCK BURGH EXTENSION, &c., ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [Lords.]
Ordered (under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936) to be considered To-morrow.

GRESFORD COLLIERY EXPLOSION.
3.48 p.m.
Mr. David Grenfell: I beg to move,
"That this House views with deep concern the conditions revealed by the inquiry into the Gresford Colliery explosion in which 265 lives were lost, and is of opinion that grave responsibility rests upon the country and Parliament to prevent such disasters by adopting immediate and effective measures for ensuring that the industry is carried on under conditions of maximum safety."
The House to-day assumes the duty which rightly falls upon Parliament in its concern for the welfare and safety of the citizens of this realm. In ordinary times we are privileged to be allowed to follow our occupations in comparative safety. Happily in this country we are free from calamities from the forces of nature, but we have not yet won exemption or immunity from special risks in many of our important industries. In the Debate 10 days ago on the subject of mining the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) reminded the House that in the last 11 years more than 11,000 men had lost their lives in the hidden depths of our coal mines. He also cited the figure of nearly 2,000,000 persons who have been the victims of notifiable accidents in that same period.
Danger always lurks down below. In the extraction of coal men contend against darkness, noxious gases and the immense pressure of rock and stone which overlie the coal seams. The science of mining involves the lighting, ventilation, and support of the spaces from which coal is extracted and sent to the surface. The Mines Department represented in this House by the Secretary for Mines is responsible for the administration of the laws and regulations and for informing the House on all matters arising therefrom. Thus we have to-day brought before us the history of one of the most appalling occurrences of the post-war period. On a Saturday morning nearly two and a-half years ago, the country was staggered to hear the news of an explosion at Gresford Colliery and a wave of public sympathy arose throughout the land, carrying with it the kindest and most generous feelings of our people. An urgent demand for an explanation of the catastrophe reached this House. Questions were directed to the Mines Department and to the Government, as a result of which the Secretary for Mines immediately
1850
appointed a Commission to inquire into the causes and circumstances of the explosion. That Commission sat almost continuously from 5th October, 1934, to the middle of December, in a tedious examination lasting 28 days which threw an enormous strain upon the Commissioner and upon all those who took part in the inquiry.
I may here pay a tribute to the skill and patience of the Commissioner and his two assessors. I do not comment now upon the conclusions. I should also like to acknowledge the exceptionally valuable services rendered by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) and the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) and other counsel who assisted in the examination of witnesses. There was considerable difficulty in collecting evidence from the men who worked in this area, and it must be remembered that the mine became inaccessible on the day following the explosion. On 23rd September the mine was, and is still, inaccessible. A good deal of controversy has arisen regarding the possibility of making an inspection on the spot of the disaster itself. The owners have refused permission. They declare that the mine is not safe. The Cornmissioner at one time appeared to be willing to enter the sealed area, and I think he must have felt in some difficulty from his dual position as Commissioner responsible for the inquiry and as Chief Inspector of Mines responsible for the staffs working under him. But it is true, and I must comment upon it, that the owners' representatives have been inside. They took the stoppings down and, accompanied by experts of the Mines Department, went to the Clutch and to a portion of the mine to which entry has been denied to the miners' representatives. The owners have been obdurate, and have declared that it is not safe to restore ventilation to this part of the mine. The miners' representatives have never agreed, and have always demanded consent to enter and inspect the area affected by the explosion.
Failing inspection, inquiries were confined necessarily to witnesses. Some were called by the colliery company, some by the North Wales Miners' Federation, and some by the Mines Department; 189 witnesses altogether were called. The constitution of the court and the list of witnesses are given in the report. I think

1851
the House is indebted to the witnesses who came forward. It is not always an easy matter for men to give evidence regarding the conditions in the mine where they are working, and where they hope to get employment in the future. I think we should pay homage to the courage of those men who came forward and spoke the truth as they believed, and as they knew it. I think, also, we should congratulate the survivors who gave evidence, and who described so vividly the circumstances following the explosion and the conditions under which they were able to make their escape. I should also like, on behalf of the House, to thank the rescuers who came from the adjoining mines to help, with the tragic loss of three lives.
The report contains much technical matter and detail, and I am sure it is not easy for a non-mining member to follow. I should like, if I may, to convey to the House a general picture of the area with which we are concerned to-day. To begin with, the Dennis shaft is out of sight, half a mile away beyond the Clutch; the latter we shall locate at the entrance to this Chamber we must assume. It lies at a depth of over 2,200 feet from the surface. It is the terminus of the Dennis intake airway, and is the beginning of the main haulage and ventilation shaft which serves the district. There are four working districts in this area. The first on the left is known as 20's and 61's, and occupies a space which might be represented by the seats occupied by hon. Members below the Gangway on the Government side of the House. In this district, the 20's and 61's, operations were conducted in the old-fashioned manner of cutting coal by hand, with little expenditure of explosives. In this district 249 men were employed in three shafts, and they produced an average weekly output of 1,651 tons, which works out at an average of 6.6 tons per man per week. I quote these figures, because I think they will become important in a later examination of the case.
On the night of the explosion there were 64 men at work in 20's and 61's. The next district we come to, still on the left hand side of the main intake road, is a district known as 109's, which may be said to occupy the position of the seats behind the Government Front Bench; 167
1852
men were at work here. They produced, under great difficulties, natural handicaps and handicaps due to bad organisation, an average weekly output of 813 tons, which works out at an average per person of only 4.6 tons. There is a district, a continuation of the main 142's Dip, which goes right behind what I might describe as Mr. Speaker's Chair and is known as 95's and 24's, dipping steadily the whole way and reaching a depth from the surface of 2,600 feet. Hon. Members will know that at a depth of 2,600 feet the natural temperature of the strata or the ground would rise to about 94 or 95 degrees Fahrenheit—a very warm place indeed, as all the evidence at the inquiry shows.
Then we come to a district known as 14's, which may be represented by the section of the House that is behind me. There 128 men were employed and the output was 1,617 tons per week, or an average per man of 12.6 tons, twice as much as the output produced in 20's and 65's and nearly three times as much as the output produced in 109's. On the night of the explosion 51 men were at work in this place, or 11 more in number than the average who worked there in the previous week on the same shift. I state that because additional men had come back to work on the night of the disaster, men who had worked the previous day, the previous afternoon, and were brought back to work overtime on the night of the disaster. We next come to a district called 29's, which would occupy the position represented by the benches on this side of the House below the Gangway. There were 162 men employed there and they produced 1,340 tons weekly, an average of 8.3 tons per person per week. On the night of the disaster there was a night shift of 89 persons, which is 39 in excess of the average number in the preceding week. You have, therefore, in the different districts a large proportion of men who had worked the previous day and were working overtime when they met their doom.
Before I attempt to criticise, let me say that I sat throughout the inquiry. I listened to almost every word, but I spoke not one word myself. I heard almost every word uttered by all the witnesses. Without undue presumption I wish to submit a general condemnation of the lay-out of all these districts, and

1853
to say that this Dennis area was unworkable and had been unworkable for a long time before the explosion. Sir Henry Walker lends his great experience and authority to this statement. He does not make his condemnation as sweeping as mine, but he has in his report referred to the unfit condition and has declared that some part of this pit should have been stopped long ago. But he does not include 20's and 61's in his condemnation. I must do so. I am not convinced that the persons employed in that district had not two ways of egress so as to comply with Section 36 (3) of the Coal Mines Act. The return airway from the last place in 20'S was a mile long and had been standing for many years without means of removing any falls of stone that may have occurred in the period. All practical miners know that an airway in that condition soon contracts.
There are two independent witnesses to support me in the view that I take. There is first of all Mr. Williams, one of the rescue brigade. On the 28th day of the inquiry, in reply to question 41,086, he described how he was instructed by Mr. Harold Thomas to go down the 20'S return airway, as there might be some men lying down there. Then Mr. Williams told a story of how he went down this dipping road with the whole of his workmates, the rescue men, how he led them as their leader, and how he had to crawl along. He describes a place where the dimensions of the road were 3 feet by 3 feet. Still further down he got so far that it was quite impossible to go any further and he signalled to the men behind and told them they must not follow because it was impossible to proceed. He said that he could not turn round, and he had to leave the place by going backward until he got to his men. Then he made signs that they must follow him and he painfully described the death of his three comrades in these tragic circumstances.
I shall also quote Mr. Benson, one of His Majesty's inspectors, who went down this roadway a year later and took a series of measurements on the way down. He said he came to a point not very far beyond the point where Mr. Williams had been compelled to retreat and he measured the height and found it was 2 feet 2 inches. I believe the evidence of these independent witnesses; I much prefer to take their evidence to the evidence of
1854
those people who declared throughout the inquiry, in monotonous repetition, that in all the return airways of the districts there was one low place, 4 feet 6 inches high. Some of us who know something about mines were not impressed nevertheless. It is alarming to see how frequently that phrase reappears in the evidence.
The law requires three essential conditions for the protection of persons working in coal mines. The first is that they shall be supplied with adequate ventilation to make the air breathable and prevent the ignition of inflammable gas or injury from noxious gases of any kind. The second is that there shall be proper support of the roof and sides in places where mineral has been extracted. The third is that at least two ways shall be available so that if one becomes closed or inaccessible another way to safety is assured. In none of these districts where these men now lie were the conditions satisfactory, judged by these standards. Mr. Joseph Jones, one of the Commissioners, has specified a number of breaches of the law by certain persons. I do not think I am expected to make charges against any individuals to-day. There is a form of procedure by which any allegation against individuals can be tested. I take the word of Sir Henry Walker, who declared in effect, on page 63 of the report, that 14's, 29's, 95's and 24's were not in a fit condition and should have been stopped. It is not possible to comment upon this report without expressing serious disquiet about the whole machinery of supervision and inspection which Parliament has been building up for nearly 100 years.
I now refer to the question of ventilation. One glance at this plan by any decent minded man is enough to show that this part of the mine was not being properly ventilated. It has been said by Mr. John Brass, one of the Commissioners, that this was not a gassy mine. I need only refer to the evidence quoted by Sir Henry Walker, which showed that gas had been about the faces in 14's, 109's and 95's when the electric current was on and the machinery in motion. Everyone knew of the gas, if we except, at their own request, the mine manager and mine inspectors, who had not made a proper inspection of the Dennis section for more than a year before the explosion. Some doubt has been cast upon the truth of the workmen witnesses. I do not

1855
know why they should be disbelieved, in view of the evidence, in view of the fact of the explosion itself, and the replies given by the firemen on pages 43 to 49 of the report—six pages quoted by the Commissioner, which I shall not trouble to read, for it would take too long. It is there in the report. Six pages show the kind of evidence to which he and others listened in painful silence.
Perhaps the most conclusive evidence on this point came out quite unexpectedly on the 26th day of the inquiry, when the company produced a number of workmen witnesses to speak as to various operations that they performed. On that day the hon. Member for Kingswinford was acting in the absence of his leader, and after a number of witnesses of less experience there came into the witness-box a middle-aged man, who had been working in 14's and for some unaccountable reason had not previously been called. He was well spoken, of good appearance and perfect demeanour. He gave evidence in reply to Mr. Shawcross, counsel for the owners. I will read this evidence, by Mr. Thomas Lloyd, of Rhosddu, on the 26th day of the inquiry. It is not in the Report. In reply to Mr. Shawcross, Question 37,198, he said he had been employed in the Dennis Area for seven years and had been working 14's airway since January. He said that ventilation was very good, only it was warm. In reply to Mr. Henderson he said, Question 37,234:
"Q. It is warm there?—Yes, it was warm. The ventilation was very good there, but it was warm."
Then he said, he had a conversation with Mr. Edward Matthews since the explosion and remembered what he said to him.
"He told me at first that gas had come down from the top end for 60 yards down the new timber road, and I said, 'If that is the case then I said there must be something happened somewhere for it to come down there. There is something happened in the wind road or something like that.'"
In reply to Mr. Hall he said:
"I have found some gas in Gresford in examining, but not as a repairer—as an old collier."
He was followed by a slightly younger man named Joseph Owens, of Acton Park. In reply to Mr. Shawcross, counsel for the company, he said he had been employed in the Dennis area seven years, that the ventilation was warm but good.
1856
"There was a good draught. Never told that gas had been found in Scouring—never a word."
He was asked:
"Q. Were you working in the air road the morning before the disaster?"
The answer was:
"Yes, I had a conversation with Thomas the fireman. I asked for an electric lamp. He wanted to get a hose pipe out. I asked for an electric lamp because the other lamps would not light."
Mr. Henderson asked:
"Which other lamp?"
and the answer was:
"The flame lamp."
While this examination was going on, a voice from the body of the court called out:
"Tell the truth man."
Mr. Owen then replied to the next question:
"Which lamp would not light?"
by saying:
"There was gas there."
Mr. Henderson asked:
"There was gas there?"
and the reply was:
"Yes, there was gas there."
Mr. Henderson then said:
"I want to know which wind road you are talking about where you say there was gas the day before the disaster."
Mr. Shawcross, counsel for the company, intervened:
"He said it was not a wind road,"
and the witness said:
"It was not the day before the accident."
The Commissioner was rather disturbed by the course of the evidence, and tried to clear up the question of date. Then the answer came:
"I will tell you when it was—before the September fall. I had known there was gas in this road a few weeks previous."
Mr. Joseph Hall then asked:
"Can you surely say that the fireman knew there was a quantity of gas in that old airway at the time he sent you in with that electric torch or lamp?"
and the answer was:
"He was with me."
Then the fireman said to Mr. Joseph Hall:
"I would never do such a foolish thing again."

1857
In answer to a question put by Mr. Charlton, the Mines Inspector, Mr. Owen said:
"It was the return airway. Before the fall the ventilation used to go round and down this old road."
Then the Commissioner said:
"I do not understand this. You have just told Mr. Charlton that you could come down the face in the airway to the place where this hosepipe was."
The answer was:
"With the flame lamp. Yes, now and again."
Question:
"Did you try this morning?"
Answer:
"Yes"
Question:
"How far did you travel down this morning?"
Answer:
"I could not get very far. About 10 or 12 yards. We could not get any farther. The lamps went out and that is what stopped us."
Question:
"Then you came back, and when you came back, what did you do?"
Answer:
"If I remember right, I think I saw the fireman, and we told him we could not get down there. He said, 'You must get the pipe out.' So he suggested borrowing a lamp."
Question:
"Who suggested it?"
Answer:
"The fireman."
Mr. Henderson then made these remarks:
"I wondered, Sir, whether in view of the unusual circumstances that have arisen in connection with the evidence of this witness and the previous witness, you would deem it desirable to have Lloyd recalled in order to give him the opportunity of saying whether he agrees with the account of this witness with regard to this particular incident? "
Mr. Shawcross, counsel for the company, said:
"As far as I am concerned, I am quite willing that that should be done, and you may like to have the fireman as well, Sir. I think perhaps in the circumstances the best course would be, if you think that desirable at all, for you to have the witnesses and put such questions to them as you think right."
It was then decided that the witness Lloyd should be recalled and that the fireman Thomas should be put in again. The two witnesses were recalled. They told a story of recklessness and demorali-
1858
sation which explained everything. They more than confirmed all the previous testimony, by workmen employed on the coal face, of lamps having been extinguished by gas, blowing the gas about with a banjack, of protests and quarrels about firing shots in the presence of gas. There is no language in which one can describe the inferno of 14's. There were men working almost stark naked, clogs with holes bored through the bottom to let the sweat run out, a 100 shots a day fired on a face less than 200 yards wide, the air thick with fumes and dust from blasting, the banjack hissing to waft the gas out of the face into the unpacked waste, a space 200 yards long and 100 yards wide above the wind road full of inflammable gas and impenetrable for that reason.
This scandal has been clearly exposed by workmen who were unwilling accessories to the violations and evasions practised every day in Gresford. The management had failed because no one in authority tried to stem the daily decadence which ended so tragically. From top to bottom, nobody had enough courage and character to demand safety provisions. There were workmen who protested; some left the pit, others came to take their places. The Commissioner here recommends that the workmen should exercise their rights to examine and to report upon the conditions of the mine in accordance with Section 16 of the Mines Act. He has rightly divined the importance of trade unionism in regard to safety. The House will appreciate that the workmen have a right to appoint
"at their own cost two of their number or any two persons not being mining engineers who are or who have been practical working miners and have had not less than five years experience of underground work, to inspect the mine once a month,"
and so on. But where the workmen are not organised, they cannot authorise persons to inspect on their behalf; they cannot pay the cost of inspection unless they have a common fund. The Section cannot be operated unless the workmen are organised. Employers do not always favour organisation. The conduct of the mines frequently suffers because of the refusal of employers to recognise the full legal rights and personal interests of the men they employ.
We now come to His Majesty's inspectors of mines. They are given special protection; the State pays them

1859
their salaries, and confers upon them great authority. They can exert a beneficial influence on the industry when they care to exercise it. In the case of Gresford, the inspectorate does not come out with much credit. The inspection was not effective. The divisional inspector had never entered the colliery. The senior inspector had been six times in about two years to see about accidents reported to him. The junior inspector had paid many visits to view the scene of accidents and to examine reports and overtime records on the surface, but he had never seen anything wrong and had not suggested any improvement or alteration. There is something radically wrong when a mine can get into the state in which the Dennis area has been proved to have been without the slightest hint of danger or defect being known to the divisional inspector or to the Mines Department. We would assume that a glance at the plan should have moved the divisional inspector to inquire into the state of ventilation or to authorise a thorough inspection of that part of the mine. No thorough inspection had been made for nearly two years.
Mr. Shaw, who had been transferred from the district in March, 1933, gave evidence at the inquiry. His detailed observations compare most refreshingly with everything that has come to light in connection with this accident. He is the one person with authority who appears to have done his duty conscientiously and well. I regret I cannot pay the same compliment to the other inspectors or to the management of the mine. It distresses me to speak unsympathetically, but we have to deal with facts and with persons impartially. Two hundred and sixty-four men have died as a result of conditions which should never exist in any mine. That gas was present in 37's, 109's, 95's, 24's and 14's for months past no one should doubt. That gas was present in the 14's face when electricity was in use, when shots were fired, when oil lamps were heated and extinguished has been fully proved. In the reports from the lamp room, covering a period of 15 weeks before 21st September, no less than 18 lamp glasses had been cracked by heat and replaced. Every mining man knows what that means.
There is no great mystery here. The mystery is why the explosion did not hap-
1860
pen long before. All the factors of causation were present in 14's, a large volume of gas, sparks from the electric cables, ignition at the cutting tool of the machine, a damaged lamp or a badly placed shot—any of these could have been responsible. Down in the 24's shots had been fixed in rippings actually on top of inflammable gas. There was one due for firing that night. There is no need to invent the cause of ignition.
The speeches of Mr. Charlton and Mr. Shawcross are reproduced in this report. They indicate how little these gentlemen have profited from the revelations of the inquiry. In the case of Mr. Shawcross, it does not matter very much, except that he is quoted in the report. In the case of Mr. Charlton, the position is different. The Commissioner has taken the evidence seriously and quotes it fully in his report. Mr. Charlton rejects or ignores all the evidence as it seems most convenient to him. He is even now unwilling to believe that gas was present in all the lower parts of the Dennis main area. He rejects the evidence of workmen and officials who admit the entire story of neglect and carelessness. He is impervious to the evidence. One might almost say he is gas-proof. He has produced a theory and falls back on futile and mischievous speculations regarding the cause and place of ignition. There is not a scrap of justification, not a sign or an indication, to confirm his belated explanation. The inquiry was perfectly open. Mr. Charlton could have put forward his theories during the investigation, but he chose to come later when he could not be cross-examined. He has given a lead which Mr. Shawcross, counsel for the company, adopts, and which Mr. John Brass includes in his report without quoting a word of evidence in support.
If we look at the plan, the suggestion breaks down at once. The suggestion that the explosion started from a spark in the telephone is too ridiculous to be entertained by anybody. The telephone at which it is suggested that the gas was ignited is in the main intake at a distance of 50 yards from the face of the drift. We must assume that there must have been at that point anything from 30,000 to 40,000 cubic feet of air coming in. It is 50 yards away from the face where the men were working and to which reference is made by Mr. Charlton.

1861
Water does not run uphill, neither does gas flow from the direction of least pressure to that of higher pressure. It is an impossible and a ridiculous suggestion. Moreover, Mr. Charlton did not see the telephone until at least eight hours after the explosion. The telephone was quite undamaged. The telephone was in its box as it had previously been, unscathed and bearing no sign of damage. Does anybody believe that an explosion could have been caused by a spark from the telephone and the telephone have remained undisturbed in its condition? The telephone was intact, undamaged. Mr. Charlton arrived there after scores of other persons had been past the telephone. There is no assurance that Mr. Charlton saw this telephone hanging to build up his theory upon it then. This theory was invented by Mr. Charlton and Mr. Shawcross. Not a word of evidence has been given by any of the 189 witnesses who were called by the parties and examined by both these gentlemen. This is not treating the inquiry with respect. These gentlemen could have presented any number of interesting theories without having heard one word of evidence on either side. I regret that His Majesty's Inspector has ignored the facts and has resorted to fancy instead. I do not wish to refer to Mr. Shawcross, except to say that Mr. Shawcross, much against his will, had to take gas at the inquiry. He swallowed a reservoir of gas, and now we find him, on page 169 of the report, sniffing at a gob stink.
The mining industry is a school of hard experience. We pay dearly for instruction. In this instance the commissioner has learned something even at the approaching end of his very long experience in this industry, and he has made his recommendations. I wish he had been more emphatic in some matters. Mr. Joseph Jones has declared his view and has not gone outside the evidence of the inquiry for his conclusions. This House will deal in its own way with this subject. I most earnestly hope that we shall make it unmistakably clear that we shal require the strictest administration of the law and of the regulations, and that if new legislation is necessary, this House will play its part in protecting the lives of the men who dig coal for the increase of wealth and comfort in this land.
4.33 p.m.
The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): This Debate is an inevitable one, in view of the Report recently presented to Parliament. If I may, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) on the way in which he has opened it. He has, himself, a fund of technical knowledge on this subject shared by very few in this House, and he has the further advantage, as he told us, of having attended throughout the inquiry; and beyond that, as is probably known to many, he is one of those who is at the moment giving his services as a Commissioner to the Royal Commission on Safety and Health in Mines and is, therefore, day by day hearing evidence and seeing points of view many of which, of course, cover some of the aspects of this particular disaster.
This disaster is one which was unparalleled for a period of over 20 years in the number of deaths that were involved, and naturally, in a catastrophe of that kind, there were many wounds inflicted. More is the pity, in a way, that we have to have this Debate, because time must be beginning to heal some of the bitterness—[An HON. MEMBER: "We shall never forget."]—and I hope that nothing that may be said in this Debate will make it any harder for those who have survived, certainly not if I can help it. One of the most poignant lines that you will find written by Virgil is one in the Second Aeneid, where Aeneas, beginning a description of his long wanderings, opens with the remark:
"Too cruel to be told, great Queen, is the sorrow you bid me to revive."
Here we are speaking of a particular morning in 1934, two o'clock on 22nd September, in a section of the Gresford pit. Something happened, and 265 lives were lost as a consequence. At once my predecessor ordered a formal investigation, in the words of the terms of appointment, "into the Causes and Circumstances of the Explosion." Sir Henry Walker, the Chief Inspector, was appointed as the Commissioner, and with him sat two Assessors, Mr. John Brass and Mr. Joseph Jones. At the end of Mr. Jones' Report he expresses the considered opinion—and I refer to this because I was asked a question about it the other day—that the Chief Inspector of Mines, or any of his assistants, should not in future be called upon

1863
to conduct formal investigations of this kind. He says he does not impute incompetence or unfairness, but he recognises that it is a difficult position. That may be Mr. Jones' considered opinion, but I think it should be on the record that it is his opinion after the event. It is an ex post facto opinion, because at the time when the Commission was set up, as was stated in this House, the appointment of Sir Henry Walker and the constitution of the Court were settled after consultation, and in accordance, with the wishes of the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain. It may be that the result of this inquiry makes many hon. Members think it is undesirable that this course should be followed, but let us remember that at the time when the Court was set up, representatives of the men were specifically asked about it and that it was after consultation and in accordance with their wishes, that Sir Henry Walker was appointed the Commissioner, because they held, I understand, that it was the kind of investigation in which it would be of advantage to have as the Court someone who, in the ordinary language, was a good pit man and, therefore, understood the case that was being put. It has been for many years the normal practice for the Chief Inspector to be the chief member of the Court in cases of this kind, a practice which has been adopted by all parties who have had to deal with the administration of the Coal Mines Act. But for the future, I do not think that I can, here and now, possibly bind myself or my successors by saying that under no circumstances should we ever have anybody to judge or, alternatively, that under no circumstances should we have anybody else excepting the Chief Inspector. I think, generally speaking, these cases must all depend on the circumstances which surround a particular disaster—though I only hope there may not be many disasters which will require a Court at all. I do not think it would be possible, here and now, to lay down specifically the course of action in matters so delicate and difficult as this.
But I do think the Court should receive from us all our thanks for the way in which it patiently carried out this investigation. The long delay between the publication of the Report and the original setting up of the Court was, of
1864
course, chiefly due to the doubt as to whether it would be feasible to enter the area where the explosion had taken place, because obviously, if anybody could have seen the site or got anywhere near it, they might have been able to come to far more definite conclusions than they could from merely cross-examining witnesses. That is the cause of the delay. And it is largely due to the fact that no one has been able to enter into the affected area, as well as, of course, to the fact that it is clear from the Report that a great deal of the evidence submitted was contradictory, that there is so much mystery still left as to what happened. If the House will look at the Report, at the bottom of page 105, they will find that the Commissioner's conclusion is that:
"when, as in this case, no inspection is possible, the place of origin and cause become matters of conjecture not capable of proof, and, as Mr. Joseph Hall rightly indicated in his speech, it is not possible to state the cause of this explosion."
It is true that the two Assessors are slightly more definite, but their theories are quite different, and I think the real fact is that, with the mine sealed up as it is, it is impossible to find what is the cause. But this one can say, that there was an explosion, because there are survivors who felt it, and that there was a fire, because there are survivors who saw one. It is also possible, as the Commissioner did, to go as far as this and to say that there were certain dangers which arose out of the ventilation, and that the neglect of that, somehow, somewhere, may have caused the trouble.
The matters principally raised by this Report appear to be three different aspects of the law—first of all, the observance of the law dealing with safety by those engaged in the industry, owners, officials, workmen; secondly, the problem of the administration of the law, which is laid by Parliamentary authority upon myself and upon His Majesty's Inspectors; and, thirdly, the amendment of the law, whether it is by Parliament or whether it is under such powers of regulation as I have. Those seem to me to be the three points with which I am primarily concerned, at any rate, at this stage of the Debate.
May I take the first, the observance of the law by those concerned in it? In spite of a relatively good accident record in the

1865
past, the managing staff and the officials, according to the Report, did not, in important respects, effectively control the necessary safety measures. Under the law the responsibility in chief rested with the manager, and during the course of the investigation he accepted it. The Report, of course, is very technical to those who are not as experienced as the hon. Member who spoke first, and many Members of this House must have found it very hard to follow, but even with comparatively little knowledge of the subject, anyone reading through the Report will get the impression that some things in the Dennis area were definitely bad. But it is not for me or for anyone in this Debate to assume that in respect of this or that matter there is guilt in the eyes of the law. I have naturally been in close touch with my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, and he has the whole question of proceedings arising out of the Report under active consideration. The material is voluminous, but is being examined with a view to seeing which findings of the Court are a proper subject matter for further proceedings at law. This applies also to the part of the Report which refers to the alleged fabrication or concealment of evidence. In these circumstances it would be wrong for me to discuss, except in the most general terms, that part of the findings dealing with the observance of the law.
Before I leave that point, there is one aspect to which the attention of the House should be called. That is the opinion expressed by the Commissioner on page 72, where he says that his conclusion on the evidence was that:
"shot firing in 14's district was carried on with little regard for the requirements laid down in the Explosives in Coal Mines Order, and that the workmen were just as keen to get shots fired speedily as those who were firing the shots ….
There is also his view expressed later, on page 86 that:
"there was a considerable amount of incidental evidence that men were allowed to work and did work longer hours than are permitted by the Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1908. … In fact, the provisions of that Act were, to all intents and purposes, ignored."
Later, on page 87, he said that
"it would seem that there was at least some tacit arrangement between the management and the workmen or their representatives."
The House should be in possession of that expression of views by the Commis-
1866
sioner. It is to a certain extent borne out by a remark made by Mr. Jones on page 144 when he is dealing with what he calls:
"indiscipline and complete demoralisation among the officials,"
and when at the end of the sentence, he refers to the impression:
"that flagrant risks were taken with the knowledge of all concerned in order that the maximum tonnage could be got per day."
The second problem is the administration of the law through the inspectors. Perhaps I may be allowed to explain to hon. Members who do not sit for mining constituencies—it is elementary to those who do—what are the general arrangements for inspection. There are eight districts, each of which has a divisional inspector in charge with a central office. Under him there are senior inspectors who have parts of the district allotted to them, and below them, leaving out the technical inspectors, are junior and sub-inspectors throughout the districts. The number of inspectors has remained pretty constant for a considerable period of years. Actually, the number of pits which are working has gone down in recent years and so has the number of men in employment. On the other hand, there has been a great increase in the use of machinery, so that, as far as the labours of the inspectors are concerned, perhaps these two factors roughly balance out. It would be difficult to say exactly. All recent Governments have accepted the general positions as it is to-day?
Are there enough inspectors? The numbers, as I have said, are pretty constant. For the years from 1928 to this year, there has not been a fluctuation of more than three or four inspectors dealing with coal mines. I leave out those dealing with quarries and other mines. I find that going back as far as 1924 there were 95, and for some years it was 96 or 97. In 1930 it went up to a 100, in 1931 it was 98, and in 1935 it was 99, so that there has been no great variation. Indeed, in the evidence which the Mine Workers Federation of Great Britain have just given to the Royal Commission on the question of inspectors, they do not specifically offer any suggestion as to how numerous the inspectorate ought to be. In their main evidence they only say that there ought to be a larger number, and in cross-

1867
examination the opinion was expressed that there should be enough for a thorough inspection to be made once a year.
The problem, then, is whether the inspectors are inspecting enough. The inspectors are out and about every day, and it is interesting to tell the House that they receive very few complaints about the condition of pits.
Mr. A. Bevan: Complaints from whom?
Captain Crookshank: From anybody. Therefore, their only way of deciding which pit to inspect is to decide it for themselves and to take a sample. In the North Wales area which we are discussing, it is a curious thing that during the whole of 1934 no complaint was made to the inspectors about any pit. In 1935 there were only two, in 1936 only one, and this year none. [Interruption.] I am dealing with the problem of how the inspectors decide what pits to inspect. They will naturally first inspect a pit about which complaint has been made, from whatever source the complaint comes. It may be from Members of this House or from a workman in the pit. It might even be an anonymous complaint, because they are investigated too. When they decide what pits they will inspect, they have to rely on their own judgment. They do it by taking a sample in the same way as all inspections are done, whether factory inspection, or inspections by local authorities into overcrowding or in carrying out the many functions that are placed on them. When there is a military inspection of a battalion, one general will look at the buttons and another at the boots. It is a question of samples.
That position was explained in the evidence which was given on my behalf to the Royal Commission by the Under-Secretary for Mines. He was asked about this method of inspection, and he said that the inspectors visited every pit at least once a year. They so arranged their inspections that in the course of three years they have been throughout every part of the pit. Beyond that, they use their discretion. If they see that a pit is well managed and satisfactory, they do not visit it so often as in the case of those that are below the average. The same kind of procedure is adopted by the
1868
inspectors who inspect on behalf of the workmen. Evidence was given on this point for the Miners' Federation by Mr. Emmerson, who was asked how he did the examinations in Durham. He said that the number of inspections depended upon the conditions of the colliery. The colliery that stood fairly well would not have as many inspections as the colliery below par. That is exactly the same principle as that adopted by His Majesty's inspectors. A colliery which has a good reputation, whose accident record has nothing to indicate that it is in a particular zone of danger, is treated in exactly the same way as the workmen's inspector treats it. If the record is good, the colliery will not have as many inspections as one that is below par. If there are no complaints, I suppose that the workmen's inspector, too, acts upon his own judgment. There were no complaints about Gresford. The accident record up to this disastrous time was good—if you can use such a phrase about any accident record. When I say "good," I mean it was a better record than that of the whole country or for that district.
This colliery got its full share of the inspector's time. As we find on page 91 of the Commissioner's Report, it got its full share of inspection at the rate of rather more than one a month. To return to the point I was making about a thorough examination once a year, the hon. Gentleman dealt with a district called the 14's district. Let us take that as an example. In his Report the assessor, Mr. Jones, calls that district a "veritable gasometer." The junior inspector, Mr. Dominy, was in that very district on the 21st March, 1934. He made tests and he found no gas. There was no suggestion then that there was anything wrong. In April, the Commissioner points out in his Report, there was trouble at the "top end," and in May the situation had got such that, in his view, a drastic remedy was needed. An inspection once a year, supposing that inspection had been in March, would not have helped that contingency.
Mr. Grenfell: A thorough inspection would.
Captain Crookshank: I know what a thorough inspection means. The point here is that there was an inspection which showed that there was no gas.
Mr. Grenfell: Mr. Dominy on his own evidence did not go to 14's to look for gas. He went there to visit the scene of an accident, and he went nowhere else.
Captain Crookshank: I never said for what purpose he went there. I said that he went there, and, according to the Commissioner's Report on page 45, he made tests for gas and found no gas. He had had no complaints made to him. He was in this district, whatever the reason, and tested for gas in March. Things got rapidly worse, and yet no one mentioned it to the junior inspector. He was back in the pit for one reason or another in May, June, twice in July, and in September, but nothing was said to him about this rapidly deteriorating position. He was in exactly the same position as any other inspector who has to decide where he will make his investigation or inspection. He went to the place and he heard no bad report of this particular pit, which was certainly not the worst pit of those which were in his inspecting area.
Mr. A. Jenkins: Do I gather that that was not the worst pit that was under Mr. Dominy?
Captain Crookshank: I do not think it was, by any manner of means. As I said, I think it had had a fairly good record.
The hon. Gentleman opposite stressed the position in regard to the inspectors. They are the people for whom I answer in this House and the next question which arises is whether or not they have sufficient powers to deal with this problem. The indictment here in the Report about the general ventilation position is that the lay-out was bad, that there were too few air ways and that ventilation plans were neglected and so on. If hon. Members study the Act of 1911 they will find, as has been made clear in the Report, that the only test which the law requires is the test of Section 29 which judges ventilation entirely by, results as to whether it is adequate or not. That test was made by the inspector and the results showed that even in this district, which was afterwards shown to be so dangerous, there was nothing for complaint. It may be that greater powers should be given to the inspectors. That is one of the points upon which we hope to get advice from the Royal Commission, but at the moment on the question of ventilation it is entirely
1870
by results that the inspectors have to test these matters and by the results, in this case, there was nothing for Mr. Donimy to report upon.
The other problem which comes up is whether the general organisation of the inspection districts is right. The present organisation was the result of the Royal Commission of 1909 and there again, for advice as to the future, we must await the report of the present Royal Commission. The House will remember that the setting up of that Royal Commission was one of the important points in the Government's programme dealing with coal at the last General Election and one of the first things that we did when this Parliament met was to set up that Commission. It has been working very hard under the distinguished chairmanship of Lord Rockley. This Report has been circulated to the members of the Commission and no doubt, in any advice or recommendations which they make, they will take account of all that is said in the Report. But I think that on these particular points as to the powers, the responsibilities and the districts of the inspectors, we must await what they have to say after taking all the evidence. Of course that Commission was set up after this disaster occurred and therefore this was one of the points which was in mind.
Another point with regard to the inspectors is the position of individual inspectors, and perhaps I may be allowed to say something upon that matter, because the remarks of Mr. Jones the assessor in the Report are of such a sweeping nature that I could not pass them over without comment. He says, on page 146, that the evidence reveals that the visits were both "insufficient and ineffective." The other assessor, Mr. Brass, makes no comment. Therefore I hope I am right in assuming that he concurs in the views of the Commissioner. The Commissioner, in the first place, on page 89, does not accept the statement which was made by counsel that the inspectors "naturally desired to, minimise any adverse features in the condition of the mine." He does not think that, on the evidence, that statement is justified. Secondly, he does not accept the statement that the inspectors, equally with the management and the deputies, were "responsible for the explosion." He finds no justification for imputing "any general neglect or incompetency" to the inspectors.

1871
I have naturally gone carefully into the matter and I have to inform the House that I agree with the Commissioner in his view with regard to these three inspectors. It is not, I consider, an occasion for any disciplinary action. After all, these three inspectors, like all other inspectors, are and were during all this time, very hard-worked men with many responsibilities for many mines. Gresford was not the only one with which they were concerned. They are no more infallible, I imagine than any of the rest of us and as I have said the indications which they received were to the effect that Gresford had a fairly good record. They had no particular reason to be suspicious of it. They had no particular reason to have any less confidence in the manager of that pit than they had generally in the managers of pits and it is the manager and not the inspector who is the person responsible for the safety of a pit. It is possible on the evidence adduced that if more time had been devoted by the inspectors to examining all the records as regards ventilation, shot-firing or stone-dust prima facie they might have seen that there was something which required immediate investigation. On the other hand, I should be very slow to lay it down that the bulk of inspecting must consist of looking through plans and records in the colliery offices. If that were so, we should very soon have complaints the other way round and questions as to why the inspectors did not come down the pits. It is difficult for the inspector, upon whom the responsibility rests, to decide upon balance which is the best way to do the inspecting.
Mr. Charlton is a divisional inspector and it would be doing much less than justice to him or to any other inspectors to say that he and they only deal with things about which they have legal powers. Everybody in the mining world knows that by influence and persuasion the inspectors are able to achieve a great deal for the safety and health of the workers—far in excess of anything they can do merely by acting as policemen. Mr. Charlton has had a very wide experience. He was the divisional inspector in the Swansea area before he was where he now is and it is my intention that he should continue in his present post. The senior inspector, Mr. Boyden, has not had such wide experience. He was senior inspector in the Midland and Southern
1872
district for nine years and he has been in his present district for seven and a-half years. He is now nearing the age of retirement and a junior inspector will shortly be promoted to take his place in the North-Western division. In the few remaining months of his service he will be employed on special duties elsewhere. Mr. Dominy came from Scotland where he had had very good reports previously. He came here in order to get wider experience before the time when he might be promoted to a senior inspectorship and he was stationed in North Wales to get that experience. Having, to the best of my ability, reviewed all the circumstances, I am unable to find justification for the severity of some of the criticisms directed against him during the inquiry. I feel that while he is a good inspector he may be, like many others of us, a bad witness, especially when it comes to being cross-examined by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. The fact that one is not very good in the witness-box does not necessarily mean that one is not good at one's job. The reports which I have had since on Mr. Dominy confirm me in my opinion that, while it was desirable from all points of view that he should not stay in North Wales after all this, there is nothing against him in the work which he is now doing.
This has been a matter of great anxiety to me and I hope the House will take it from me that if I thought there was any occasion for disciplinary action I would take such action. I recognise that in times of stress and emotion like this there is a natural tendency in the minds of many people to try to find a scapegoat. I do not wish to find a scapegoat and none of these three inspectors should be made a scapegoat. If I allowed myself to be swayed by any attempts of that kind I should be doing less than justice to a very hard-working body of public officials.
So much for the inspectors, and I do not want to keep the House much longer. But I must say something about the third point which I mentioned, namely, the present and the immediate future and the amendment of the law. I have pointed out, I think with sufficient clearness, that the big matters must await the advice which we will get from the Royal Commission and that advice will be taken into immediate consideration in order that we may make our pro-

1873
posals to this House as to what ought to be done. I am sure that in any case but still more after this event, the House will have no hesitation in conforming to our wishes when the time comes.
The question is whether there is not anything in this Report as to which something might be done, even in anticipation, and perhaps the House would be interested to know something about that aspect of the question. The first thing to be considered is whether there may have been and whether there is revealed in the Report any defect of organisation. I have dealt with that by a general instruction to all inspectors. They have each received a copy of the Report for personal study. They have received instructions as to how they are to act when taking over a fresh appointment or on transfer, a matter about which something is said in the Report. Those instructions have been very clearly laid down by me. They have also received fresh instructions as to examining the reports and records at colliery offices. They have received fresh instructions—and this is a new point—as to examining ventilation records and plans, and if they see anything in the plans to which they think the attention of their superior officers should be directed it is incumbent upon them to do so. That is a new responsibility placed upon them as a result of this Report. And they have also received fresh instructions about ensuring the proper taking of stonedust samples.
That is what I have been able to do with the inspectors. Beyond that, I am considering drafting regulations under the powers which I possess. Here may I say in parenthesis that I have made it clear to the Royal Commission that anything which is done at this time is purely ad interim and is not to be taken, in any way, as prejudging their recommendations. Nor indeed are these regulations intended to deal with the most important things but with things which arise at the moment because they are specifically mentioned in the Report on the disaster. We should be failing in our duty, even though they are not the most important things, if we did not proceed to deal with them. The regulations then which I am drafting deal first of all with the use of telephones and bells and secondly with the question of fire precautions and the question, for example, of having dumps
1874
of sand or stone dust in certain specific places. While I am not in a position at the moment to give details they will also deal with certain points about tire fighting organisation which might be adopted and practices which might be used in the mines for helping to deal with outbreaks of fire. There will also be new regulations dealing with stone dusting, and the question of keeping plans to show the places where samples have been taken, and, secondly, laying down that where the volatile content is over 20 per cent. the combustible content of road dust should be kept throughout below the required minimum of 50 per cent. Those regulations are in process of being drafted and will be submitted to the Royal Commission before they are put into effect, I must, shortly without prejudice to the Commission's recommendations for fundamental changes of the law.
Mr. Batey: You could deal with overtime.
Captain Crookshank: Overtime cannot be dealt with by regulations. That is entirely another matter.
The hon. Member for Gower will notice that I have not referred to his Motion at all. That is not out of discourtesy to him, because I think that he will have realised from what I have said how much I sympathise with it. I want the House to accept it. I do not want there to be any division of opinion between the two sides of the House on a matter of this kind. It will be easier for us if the hon. Member, instead of saying in his Motion, "to prevent such disasters" would say, "to try to prevent," because while the Legislature is a Sovereign Legislature there are things called "acts of God" which cannot really—[Interruption].
Mr. George Griffiths: This is an act of the Devil.
Captain Crookshank: I do not press it, but it would be nice if he would change the wording, though I would rather accept the Motion as it stands than have any difference of opinion. I would make it clear, of course, that when he speaks of "immediate and effective measures" the word "immediate" is understood in the way that I have said, that regulations on certain points are being drafted, but that the larger matters must inevitably await the Report of the Royal Commission.

1875
After all, the issue here is the issue of the safety of the man in the pit. As we all know, the life of the miner is one of very great danger all the time and, as far as that goes, so is the life of many other workers, but, of course, they do not spend their lives in quite the same difficult set of circumstances as do the miners. It is true, of course, and it is just as well to remember it, that many miners follow an almost hereditary craft, that the son succeeds the father, and, indeed, that many of them look upon a life of risk as a real he-man's life. Still, in spite of that, in spite of all that modern science can do, you cannot breathe the fresh air and have light and sunshine in the pit. In spite of all that modern science can do in the way of teaching man to try to control his environment, at the end of it all immense forces of nature may be released which may crush him, or burn him, or blow him up. And he cannot depend merely upon himself for his safety. His safety does so much depend upon the help and co-operation and attention of so many other people over whom he, as an individual, has little control, and unless they all play their part—and that is the point I would make—the individual's risk is doubled, trebled or multiplied almost to infinity.
Of course, everybody was shocked at the news of this catastrophe, and many, no doubt, have been shocked at the statements which are made in this Report, but I hope that as a result of the study of the Report we shall learn any lessons that we can from this catastrophe. This is not really a time for bitterness; it is a time for grief, but not for bitterness. Out of this catastrophe let us try to increase our scientific knowledge, let us try to improve our administrative system, if it can be improved, let us try to strengthen the law, if there are weaknesses; because that is the only way in which we can afford any consolation that it is in our power to offer to those who are bereaved—that is the assurance that Parliament's endeavour, so far as Parliament can influence such things, will be to limit the field of danger for present and for future generations of mining men. That seems to me to be the task before us all in the light of this Report and of the Debate to which it has tragically but inevitably given rise.
5.20 p.m.
Mr. Ernest Evans: I am sure the House will join in the tribute which the Minister paid to the very able speech in which my hon. Friend introduced this Motion. By reason of his experience as a mine worker, as well as by reason of his intimate association with this inquiry, there was no one more fitted to initiate the discussion. He was able to speak as a man with expert knowledge, and the Minister of Mines, if he has not himself practical experience as a mine worker, at least has behind him the authority and the experience of a great Department, and he necessarily referred to some matters of a technical character. It may, therefore, be appropriate if, at this stage, I seek to intervene as one with no expert knowledge, for the purpose of emphasising what I think he wants emphasised, and that is one or two broad issues of policy which are raised by the tragedy and by the Report of the inquiry.
First I want the House to bear in mind that one of the things Which Parliament does, and which I think it is glad to do, is to make provision in Acts of Parliament for such safeguards as are practicable for protecting and safeguarding the lives of those engaged in dangerous occupations in this country. It has done that for the mining industry. The importance of the industry to the wellbeing and, indeed, to the security of the nation, and an appreciation of the hazards and hardships which that industry imposes upon those engaged in it, have all conduced to that end, and when Parliament makes provisions of that character it is entitled to expect that they shall be put into operation.
The first thing which is obvious to anybody who has studied the Report is that that expectation was very far from having been realised in the case of the Gresford Colliery. I will take as an illustration, and as an illustration only, the part of the Report which deals with ventilation. To adopt the word of the Minister, one is "shocked" by the sort of thing which has come out in this inquiry. One need not be an expert to realise that proper ventilation is of essential importance not only to the efficiency of a mine but to the safety of those working in it. It is because of that elementary fact that the Coal Mines Act, 1911, in Part II, which is concerned with the provisions for safety, starts off with a series of sections

1877
dealing with ventilation. It calls upon those who are carrying on the industry to provide reports and returns for the Ministry, but the Report of Sir Henry Walker shows that at Gresford in the two months immediately preceding this disaster no proper reports were made, and in regard to previous months he is driven to the conclusion that a lot of the alleged records which are set out in the prescribed form required by Act of Parliament were fictitious; in other words, they were of no use. Although that is a serious matter I use it merely as an illustration, because it is not the most serious part of the Report.
A graver aspect of the matter is that there seems to be a great deal of uncertainty as to the value of those reports when they are made, and I should like the Minister, or whoever replies, to tell us what is the purpose of these reports and returns for which the Department calls, and what use it makes of them when it gets them. I ask that question because I notice that the divisional inspector is reported to have said that even when these records are obtained and are sent on to the Mines Department they are used merely for statistical purposes and not for control purposes. I should like to know a little more of what that means. If these reports are not of any practical value we might as well allow the industry to carry on without the necessity of making them, because they obviously involve a good deal of time and labour. If they are of no use, drop them: but if they are of use it is the duty of the Department to see that they are stringently accurate and that use is made of them.
There is a yet more serious aspect of the same matter, even when these reports and returns are sent to the Ministry, and that is, are they adequate for the purpose which the framers of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, must have had in mind when imposing the necessity for making those returns? I ask that because I feel very much concerned as to one part of Sir Henry Walker's Report, in which he says that these reports, in so far as they refer to air measurements, are no indication that there does exist an adequacy of ventilation in the mines. The Coal Mines Act, 1911, says that an adequate amount of ventilation shall be constantly produced in every mine to dilute and render harmless inflammable and noxious gases.
1878
Apparently those reports and returns do not indicate that that adequate measure of ventilation is secured. He says:
"So long as the ventilation complies with that provision the present law does not concern itself with any question whether the system and method of ventilation are workmanlike and efficient or, indeed, whether there is any method or any system at all."
That is borne out by the statement made by the divisional inspector, reported in page 91 of the Report. He says:
"If ventilation, judged by the absence of gas, is adequate, the Inspectors have no power to deal with such matters as large leakages of air and small size of return airways."
In other words, there is no adequate machinery for ensuring that the ventilation of a mine is adequate for any other purpose than that of complying with the provisions of a particular Section of one Act of Parliament, and that is a matter of very serious moment. I understand that it is being considered at the present time by the Royal Commission, and it seems to me that it calls for urgent and effective treatment. I said, in regard to that portion of the Report which deals with ventilation, that it is made abundantly clear that there was a breach of existing regulations, and that there is no certainty whether existing regulations are sufficient for the purpose. I think it is not exaggerating to say that we find the same thing in regard to every other part of the Report, whatever may be the subject.
I do not want to go through all those matters in detail, because there are others more competent to do that than I am, and I pass on to a part of the Report, to which the Minister himself referred, dealing with shot firing and hours of work. In this matter we have admittedly had for months continuing breaches of the law. So far as I can see, the only excuse is that the workmen themselves must have been parties to those breaches of the law, but that cannot be condoned, by whomsoever they were committed. It does not matter whether the workmen were contributing parties or not; the important thing is that there were breaches of the law in regard to two matters which were of essential importance to the safety of the workers themselves.
The suggestion is made that the workers were induced—I put it that way—to condone those offences because of the fear of victimisation. I want to be frank about this matter. When I hear sugges-

1879
tions of victimisation I am inclined to approach them, I will not say with suspicion, but rather critically. A policy of victimisation is not only cruel and unfair but is silly from the point of view of those who practise it. It is bound to lead in the end to dissatisfaction, inefficiency, and, finally, disaster. I must confess that I am alarmed to find in another part of the Report references which seem to bear out very strongly the suggestion that there is victimisation, certainly so far as this particular colliery was concerned. Sir Henry Walker points out that it had for some weeks, if not months, been clear that certain improvements ought to have been effected in the mines. He asked himself why those reforms were not effected, and he makes the very curious suggestion that the manager or the under-manager was afraid to report the defects to the inspectors because to do so might have been considered a disloyal act. Are we to be told that responsible officials engaged in the coal-mining industry in this country are not to make reports on matters affecting the safety of the mines because they will be told that they have been guilty of disloyal acts? That is a very serious suggestion to make. Sir Henry Walker does not leave it there, because he says, on page 113:
"Means should be evolved …. by which, in such circumstances, managers can retain their posts and, at the same time, have the mines which they manage kept in safe condition."
That is one of the most damning statements that I have ever heard in regard to the management and control of any industry, and I would ask the Minister to tell us whether he thinks there is any justification for that statement by Sir Henry Walker. Sir Henry is a very experienced man, and he heard this inquiry over a large number of days. Does the Minister think that if that is true in regard to Gresford Colliery it is also true of other mines in this country? If so, it is a most dangerous situation to exist in an industry where the safety and lives of the working people are daily in peril.
I believe that there is another explanation why supervision and management in Gresford were hopelessly inadequate and inefficient. I do not want to turn anybody out of a job, but the position of manager of a coal mine involves so much work that it should not be occupied by persons who are over a certain age, or
1880
are lacking in that activity and energy which must obviously be expended if the manager of a coal mine is to do his job properly. In spite of what the Minister said about a large inspectorate—I appreciate that he is compelled to defend the interests of the inspectors—it is clear from the Report that the inspectors, if they were not inefficient, were inadequate in numbers for the proper supervision of the mines in the area in which Gresford was situated. That is practically admitted, and is stressed by Sir Henry Walker. If there is a job for inspectors to do it is the duty of the Minister to see that there are sufficient inspectors to do it, and that the inspectors are efficient in that job.
The only other matter to which I would refer is a consideration which presented itself to my mind when I read the Report, and that was that this form of tribunal is not the most suitable or the most competent to inquire into disasters of this character. So far as I am aware, no charge is made, and I am not making a charge, which involves any question against the impartiality of Sir Henry Walker, but in a matter of this sort it really is not quite right that the inquiry should be entrusted to a gentleman who is, after all, an official, and a very responsible official, of the Minister, who ultimately has to accept and defend his responsibility. Inquiry by an official of the Ministry is insufficient for the Minister, it must be embarrassing for the Chief Inspector, and it may be very unfair to some of his colleagues in the Ministry. It is unsatisfactory to the industry, and I believe that it is unsatisfactory to the public. The public are entitled to be considered in this matter.
There is a common saying, and a very true one, that it is of the utmost importance not only that justice should be done but that the public should appreciate that justice is being done. If that applies to the administration of justice in a court of law in this country, it applies also where an inquiry is being conducted into a matter which shocked the public of the country by reason of the tremendous suffering which was endured. The public were shocked also, I believe, by the grave consequences which were revealed by the inquiry, and which we are now considering.
I do not necessarily commit myself to the statement that there should always

1881
be a judge in charge of such an inquiry, but I think there should be somebody who is accustomed to hearing, weighing and judging evidence; somebody who is entirely independent of the Government and of the industry, whether it be on the owners' side or that of the workmen. That is perhaps a less serious issue than the others to which I have drawn attention, and I therefore pass it over. I merely say this: This House appreciates and recognises the importance of the mining industry to the well-being of all of us, it is not lacking in appreciation of the hardships and the perils which are involved to those who are engaged underground or in other parts of the industry. It is desirous of doing everything in its power to protect them, and to diminish the risks which they have to undergo. I want to tell the Secretary for Mines that this House will not merely expect him to give us an assurance that he is watching with sympathy the matters which have been raised in the Report, but will expect him to act quickly and effectively.
5.40 p.m.
Mr. Richards: The House will have gathered from the opening speech of my hon. Friend that this was one of the most serious disasters in the history of mining; 265 lives were lost and only seven bodies were recovered. A very distressing feature of the catastrophe is that that portion of the mine in which the disaster occurred is still in such a condition that it is impossible to approach it, and it is impossible, consequently, to establish the cause of the explosion. The inquiry was conducted by the Chief Inspector of Mines in person. On personal grounds, I think Sir Henry Walker showed a great deal of resource and courage immediately after the disaster. I do not think anybody can object on any other ground to his occupying this position, except that he was one of the guilty parties. I also think that in a matter of this gravity no one less than a Judge of the High Court should be in charge of the inquiry. For one thing, a judge, accustomed to listening to evidence, would have got rid of a great deal of extraneous matter that may possibly have got in, in the course of the inquiry. Moreover, he would not be an official of the Department. Another possibility is that a judge might have brought forth not three reports such as we have been considering to-day, but a
1882
single report, with possibly certain reservations on the part of the assessors. It is tragic in the nature of the disaster, that there should have been three separate reports.
We are anxious on all sides of the House that disasters of this kind should be impossible, and it is recognised as the duty of this House to remove the possibility of disasters on this scale. There can be only three parties who could have brought about this catastrophe. Firstly, it may have been caused by a foolish accident on the part of some individual collier. The second responsible party is the manager, and the third is, of course, the inspector. With regard to the first, we have no evidence and we never shall have, but I submit that even a foolish accident would be less reprehensible than the slow series of acts that led to the final catastrophe. Here we have a very sharp distinction between the occasion of the disaster and the cause. We are thrown back upon the fact that the cause or causes have to be sought rather in the inactivity of the management and of the inspector. That point is brought out very clearly in the Report. An accident was inevitable. The conditions predisposing to accident are writ large on almost every page of the Report. Whatever may have been the final catastrophe, there is no doubt that the tragic events of which we have heard so much this afternoon, and which led up to and made inevitable the explosions, are those which we must investigate. In those conditions, an explosion could not possibly have been avoided. I wonder only that an explosion did not take place many months before, and I wonder again to-night that other explosions, not only in this pit but in other pits, do not take place more often.
The management, then, and the inspectorate are very largely concerned in the responsibility for this most terrible accident, and here I would like to pay my tribute to the courage that has been shown by the Chief Inspector in his references to his colleagues of the inspectorate. For example, this is what he says on page 84 of the Report:
"Mr. Dominy, in evidence, stated that during his inspections in the Dennis Section, he saw plainly that the main roads were being thoroughly stonedusted and on the auxiliary roads he did not see any coal dust. He took two samples on the main haulage road, the results of which have already been given. He examined the prescribed record of the results

1883
of tests of dust samples but, like Mr. Shaw, he failed to observe that samples were not being taken on the main haulage road and on the roads in the districts in accordance with the requirements of the General Regulations. Similarly, Mr. Boydell judged the stonedusting of the roads by visual examination and not by taking samples. He said as the result of this examination that the condition as to dust seemed to be quite satisfactory and he too failed to observe that samples were not being taken as required by the Regulations. Mr. L. C. A. Benson, Sub-Inspector in the North Staffordshire coalfield made one inspection at the mine, namely, on 26th June, 1933, and he reported that the condition of the roads as regards stonedust appeared to be satisfactory. All these Inspectors"—
and he names pretty well every inspector that has ever been to Gresford as far as I can see—
"appeared to be of opinion that a sufficient idea of the state of the roadways with regard to stonedusting could be obtained by visual examination. It may be possible by visual examination to determine whether stonedust has been recently applied and it is possible when, as at Gresford Colliery, the stonedust used was practically white. But it is not possible to determine the combustible content of an intimate mixture of coal dust and stone-dust by looking at it."
On page 90 he sums up the situation with regard to the inspectorate as follows:
"In the sections of this Report dealing with ventilation and with precautions against coal dust, it has been my duty to say that in certain respects, in my judgment, certain inspectors were at fault in their dealings with this colliery over a period of years, and I have now to say that in 1933 there was a defect of organisation which ought not to have occurred, in that when Mr. Dominy took over the duties of Mr. Show proper steps were not taken …"
I do not know that the Minister need be quite as complacent as he appears to me to be in dealing with the delinquencies of these inspectors. After all, here is a very serious and a very courageous indictment of the Inspectorate of Mines from the Chief Inspector himself. I have already indicated that, unfortunately, the inquiry naturally developed along lines of interest, and the result is that, instead of one strong vigorous report, we have three reports. I am astonished to find the close corespondence that there is between the report of Sir Henry Walker and the report of Mr. Joseph Jones. Mr. Joseph Jones, naturally enough, if I may so put it, is rather more emphatic; Sir Henry Walker is perhaps a little more specific. Sir Henry's report, unfortunately, is highly technical, and here is
1884
another disadvantage from which we suffer in having the Chief Inspector as the conductor of this inquiry. It is, I know, a highly technical question, but I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that the short introduction given by Mr. Jones in his report gives us a better bird's-eye view of the situation in the main than we get in either of the others.
As my hon. Friend has suggested, it is a considerable disadvantage from the point of view of the public, who are entitled and who are anxious, particularly in my constituency, to know the facts, and I think it would be an advantage if the Report could have been written in rather less technical language. But I have not been able to discover that there is in any essential point any fundamental difference between Mr. Jones's report and that of Sir Henry Walker, and, considering that they approach this question, as they naturally do, from divergent points of view, I think that that is exceptionally satisfactory. For example, this is what Mr. Jones says on page 146 about the inspectorate, and I think that on the whole it is rather mild as compared with what has been said by Sir Henry Walker:
"The evidence revealed that the visits paid by His Majesty's inspectors to this colliery had been both insufficient and ineffective."
I would ask the Secretary for Mines whether that is not borne out entirely by what I have already read from the report of Sir Henry Walker? He mentions particular cases where inspection has been held, it is true, but where it looks to me as though it has been held in quite a casual fashion. I am suggesting that there is not much divergence, except such as is naturally due to the divergent points of view, between the reports of Mr. Jones and of Sir Henry Walker; but when we come to the report of Mr. Brass, which I would like to analyse in some little detail, we are in quite a different category. This, I think, is a most extraordinary document. It consists for the most part of simple ipse dixits which in most cases are not supported by a scrap of evidence. Mr. Brass starts by saying that he disagrees, as is quite natural, with Sir Henry Walker on several important points. One is not surprised at that, but what I am surprised at is that, of the long catalogue of strictures passed by Sir Henry Walker, Mr. Brass does not seem to agree with

1885
one. I cannot understand how anyone who had the privilege of listening to the evidence and cross-examining witnesses could fail to agree with Sir Henry Walker on a single one of these points. I would like to examine a few of them, though I do not wish to detain the House for very long, because I know that there are many others who wish to speak on this Report, which is one of the most terrible reports I have ever tried to read and understand. On page 117 Mr. Brass says this about the evidence of the deputies:
"In my opinion, the deputies who gave evidence were an intelligent body of men, and had carried out their duties in a manner which was expected of them."
There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the deputies. If their evidence is not clear in places, that rather suggests the effect of the hostile atmosphere of the public in the court and the cross-examination by one of the most eminent counsel of the day, the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who is now causing trouble in other places; and the nervous tension from which they and many of the other witnesses were suffering must also be borne in mind. On pages 31–36 Sir Henry Walker deals in very great detail with the evidence of these deputies, and on page 31 he says:
"They were examined at length on the point and I am struck by what they said and by what they left unsaid about the inspection of 24's airway. Parry, in describing the route he followed when making his first inspection (he was not asked about his second) on 21st September, did not mention 24's haulage road—a road which he was required to inspect—but stressed that he travelled along 24's airway—a road which he was not required to inspect."
On page 36 Sir Henry sums up his impression of the deputies. After going into the matter very carefully and quoting at great length from the evidence, he says:
"The evidence of these two deputies, on this point, does not ring true and I do not accept it as true. I do not believe that 24's airway—which as I have already said I believe to have been a return not an intake—was inspected by either of them on 21st September and I do not believe that it was sufficiently open for inspection on that date."
The same applies to the statement with regard to ventilation on page 119, which is contradicted by the inspector on pages 34 and 40. Mr. Brass says at the beginning of his report that the mine was not at all a gassy one, but a fireman named Williams said:
1886
"Of course it is a gassy mine. Most mines are gassy. You have to take it for granted that they are gassy unless you are quite certain that they are not."
He admitted that on many occasions he failed to find evidence of the presence of gas. Mr. Joseph Jones, in his very interesting introduction to his Report, points out that the Gresford Mine is on the east of the Bala Fault, and consequently it is a very dry mine and the presence of gas, he says, in one of the seams is very well known. I could go through a whole catalogue of indictments in which Sir Henry Walker, basing his remarks in every instance on clear evidence, controverts the statements made by Mr. Brass. Indeed, the two reports are parallel in the sense that the conclusions to which Sir Henry Walker comes, after very careful deliberation, in every case contradict the conclusions of Mr. Brass.
I should like, in conclusion, to give just one other quotation. It is a most astounding statement, on page 131, made by Mr. Brass:
"Technical infringements of the Coal Mines Act and Regulations may have occurred, but in my opinion they did not contribute either directly or indirectly to the cause of the disaster."
Was ever such a sentence as that penned in the face of a disaster of that nature? I would like to ask Mr. Brass one simple question: How is it that there are still 254 men down in the Gresford Mine if the conditions were as plausible as he makes them out to be? Really, what we have here is evidence on all sides of whitewashing the management. This is a whitewashed sepulchre, and hon. Members will recollect what was said about the whitewashed sepulchre—that inside you will find men's bones and all rottenness. That is exactly what you find at Gresford to-day. The inquiry was held in order to find out the cause of the disaster. I suggest quite definitely that Mr. Brass was more concerned about shielding certain people than about finding the cause of this terrible disaster.
I understand that the inquiry is not yet quite complete, and I think that it ought to be completed as soon as possible. I know there are difficulties about entering the area that was affected by this terrible explosion, but there are other considerations which make the conclusion of the inquiry imperative. For example, I am told even now that the question of rescue in this and other mines calls for the most

1887
stringent inquiry. I have been told on good authority that the apparatus for rescue, which so flagrantly broke down in this case, is unsatisfactory throughout the North Wales coalfield, and the most stringent inquiry ought to be made because there is a reference, not only to the breakdown of the apparatus, but also to the fact that one of the deputies was responsible for sending a number of men to their deaths. That is a terrible responsibility to lay on the shoulders of any man and he ought to have the opportunity of having his say, because I understand that he was not alone involved in this terrible business, but was advised by an Inspector of His Majesty's Government to proceed to the dangerous part of the mine. That is a question on which I cannot dogmatise, but it is one that ought to be investigated with very great care.
I understand that it is possible that a prosecution may take place. I do not know how wide the net will be and how many people will be involved, but I am certain that in this case, as in others, the real culprits will escape again. I have every sympathy with the manager, the officers and the men in the mine, but behind them are the men who drove them to break the law persistently, men who were far away from the scene of the disaster, enjoying themselves, coursing their greyhounds, or whatever they were doing. They are the men we want to get at, because the management are as helpless as the men are in face of the continuous demand for coal coming from where it may. This is an indictment not of a particular pit, but of a system, and you will never get rid of these difficulties until you get rid of the system. I think Mr. Brass has done a great service, as far as we are concerned, in showing that, however inadequately a mine may be carried on, there is someone ready to whitewash them. There is no whitewashing of disasters of this kind, and I hope the House will take the lesson to heart that we must change the motive of industry before we can be certain that the men's lives are safe.
6.3 p.m.
Mr. Peake: I think a coalowner ought to say a few words on an occasion such as this. I should like to preface my remarks with two observations. The first is that I do not speak as a technical
1888
expert. I cannot claim a tenth part of the knowledge of the conditions down the mines that is possessed by a good many hon. Members opposite, but I have discussed this Report with men who are very highly qualified, and I want to express the wish that not only will the Report be read by all the inspectors, but that it will be made available by the coalowners to everyone who is connected with the management of collieries. In the second place, I recognise the very general desire on all sides that we should not say any hard things that can possibly be avoided. I share the feelings of the last speaker. I can understand his feelings when he saw the news of this disaster, because when I cross a street coming down to the House and see on the news bills the headline "Colliery Explosion," or "Pit Disaster," I can assure him that I have a constant fear that it may be at a colliery with which I am myself connected, because accidents will happen even at the best regulated pits.
Therefore, I speak with a feeling of serious responsibility. At the same time, if an explosion did occur at a pit with which I am myself connected, I should feel deeply humiliated if a Report such as this were made. I am told that on the plans alone this pit stands condemned, and if you add to the plans the fact that the ventilation was faulty, and that shot-firing was being carried on with machine-mining at the face—and machine-mining releases four or five times more gas in the course of a shift than the old system of hand-getting—if you put all these things together, you have a combination of circumstances which made disaster absolutely inevitable sooner or later. I think the public are not interested in where this explosion started. They are concerned about the question, how a pit could be in the condition that this pit was? They want to know where responsibility is to be placed, and whether we can learn from the Report any lessons which will serve a good purpose.
I should like to say one or two words on the question of responsibility. I am not speaking entirely of legal responsibility. Legal responsibility rests primarily on the manager of the mine. It is true that the owners can also be prosecuted, but they are given means in the Act, which are not open to the manager, of exonerating themselves. The

1889
responsibility that I want to speak of is the moral responsibility which, in my opinion, rests to some extent upon everyone connected with the Gresford Colliery. The manager in the eyes of the law has to take all the blame. I have known a great many colliery managers, and a very fine body of men they are, but in the system there are certain safeguards which ought to guard against the failure of the colliery manager. They are human beings and, like anyone else, they may lose their judgment, or lose their nerve. There are in the system certain safeguards which then ought to come into operation. At Gresford either those safeguards did not exist, or they failed to operate. The first safeguard, in my opinion, with regard to the position of the colliery manager is the fact that the owners here were very unwise not to have a technical agent either on the board or occupying an official position in the colliery company. I do not think colliery owners have discharged their duties when they have appointed a duly certified colliery manager. I do not think that is going far enough. It is a great advantage to a colliery manager, who has to face many difficult problems, to have someone also qualified, with whom he can talk things over. To that extent I think that at Gresford the owners of the colliery—and by the owners I mean, of course, the board of directors—are to blame in that they had no agent.
The Minister has very ably defended his inspectors, but when we get the Chief Inspector saying in his Report that certain districts in this pit ought to have been closed down, it seems to me that the system of inspection has absolutely failed. The first safeguard against the breakdown of the management, which should have been the existence of either an agent or a consulting engineer, simply was not there, but the second safeguard, the inspectorate, also failed completely in this instance to detect what the trouble was.
In the third place there is the position of the men. The hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) was very careful not to attack the owners of the colliery, and I am grateful for it. I am not going to attack the men at the colliery, but I think it is very regrettable that the Miners' Union was not strong in the North Wales district. The hon. Member for Llanelly (Mr. J. Griffiths) the other day described
1890
the miners as being the salt of the earth. That is a description with which I, for one, would not quarrel, but it is, I think, the most puzzling part of this terrible disaster that men should have allowed their sons and their relations to go into a pit in the condition in which Gresford was. I agree that, if the union had been strong enough, probably this condition of affairs could not have gone on. I like to see the men whom I have the honour to employ belonging to a union. Whilst I do not think you can expect employers to compel their men to belong to any particular union, I think the Miners' Federation ought to make a great effort in districts like North Wales to increase the union's strength.
Now I turn from the question of responsibility to the inquiry itself. There are three parties to an inquiry of this kind. There is the management, including the owners, there are the men, and there is the inspectorate. I do not think it is fair to put the Chief Inspector in a position where he has to sit in judgment upon his own subordinates, and I agree absolutely with what has been said from the benches below the Gangway opposite and above, that in a case of this kind it would have been a great advantage to have someone with judicial training and with experience in weighing, evidence. I think that that is borne out by the Report itself. There are one or two sentences in the Report to which I want to refer, and I am surprised that they have not been already referred to by hon. Members on the benches opposite. They are to be found on pages 112 and 113. Half-way down page 112 hon. Members will see that
"Failure to drive three drifts through the 75 feet big fault … occurred during the late agent's tenure of office, but whether it was he who was in fault or whether he knew what ought to be done and was prevented by those in charge of the commercial side from doing it, I have no means of knowing."
Then, at the bottom of the page, hon. Members will find that
"Mr. Bonsall did say in evidence, that in a matter of finances there had never been any stint; that it was for him to consider what appliances or safety precautions were desirable or necessary and that he had always found that he could get what he wanted in the way of money to carry out his wishes in those respects."
In spite of that being the only evidence upon that point the Chief Inspector expressed, at the top of page 113,

1891
"an uneasy feeling that Mr. Bonsall was overridden."
We could not have had an addition of that kind if a man trained in the law had conducted the inquiry. Either that question would have been probed to the bottom as, in my opinion, it ought to have been, or else that uneasy feeling to which the Chief Inspector refers should not have been expressed in the Report.
As regards Gresford we have no knowledge upon that point, but the allegation is frequently made from the benches opposite, both here and in the country, that mine managers have to choose between economy and safety, that there is a constant battle going on between the desire to keep down his costs of production and the expenditure of money upon necessary safety measures. That opinion is widely held on the benches opposite, and it is held to widely differing extents. It is not held by the miners' representatives as a general allegation against all mines at all times. That you will find put before the Royal Commission which has been considering safety in mines. Sir Evan Williams was in the chair giving evidence on 9th February last and he was being examined by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), who put this question to him—it is question No. 31,356:
"I do not suggest that the coalowners would sacrifice safety to profit, but are there not circumstances where a colliery has no resources to carry out what is necessary in the interests of safety?"
The answer of Sir Evan Williams to what was an extremely fair question, was this:
"If they cannot do what is essential in the interests of safety, they ought to shut the colliery up."
And that is the right reply. The allegation that safety is sacrificed to economy is held to a far greater degree the further the man who makes it becomes removed from the coal industry, and in the hands of, let us say, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Greenwood), it becomes a charge that in all industry, and at all times and places, safety is sacrificed to economy; and it becomes a condemnation of the whole system of capitalist industry and of the profit motive in industry. You have only to state it as a general proposition to see its absurdity, because if that is true, it is obviously
1892
true of undertakings like the railways, shipping and such an organisation as the London Passenger Transport Board or the Co-operative societies themselves, and of any undertaking which is trying to make both ends meet, to keep its costs down and to pay interest to its stockholders, when providing the service or producing the goods in which it is engaged.
Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman will admit that in the industries he has mentioned a uniform and automatic system of safety devices is much more possible than in the mining industry. If he looks at the curve of the accident rate in the pits he will see that the larger number of accidents occur in the middle of the day when most men are more pre-occupied with output than at any other time of the day. It is not that colliery managers have to choose between neglecting the safety of their men and safety devices but an over pre-occupation without methods of safety, which is an entirely different matter.
Mr. Peake: The interruption really did not deal with the point I was making. If it is a general allegation that in capitalist industry safety is sacrificed to economy, then, it is equally applicable to those industries of ours which have been socialised or semi-socialised, because they are all aiming at efficiency and keeping down their costs and at having something over with which to pay interest to their stockholders. But I say that you have only to state the general proposition to see how absurd it is. It is more absurd in regard to the mining industry than in regard to any other, and, for these reasons: In the first place, serious disaster to a colliery inflicts very heavy financial losses on the undertaking; and moreover, unlike almost any other industry, we cannot insure against such risks. They are uninsurable, and the whole loss of a disaster must fall upon the colliery itself. Further, the cost of compensation is heavier in the mining industry than in any other, unfortunately, and although this can be covered by insurance to some extent, certainly in the district from which I come, more than half of the cost of compensation is carried by the colliery itself, so that we have large interests in avoiding serious disaster. Even if you limit your allegations to unprofitable pits and to particular unprofitable periods, it still falls to the ground.

1893
There is no evidence statistically—and I feel quite sure that if there was any the Miners' Federation would produce it—that accidents are more frequent at non-profitable pits than they are at profitable ones. Ever since the Coal Mines Act of 1911 was passed, under Section 80 any serious accident has to be reported to the representatives of the men, and it is therefore quite open to the Miners' Federation to collect statistical evidence as to the incidence of fatal and serious accidents at various individual collieries, and I have not the slightest doubt that they have done so. If they have done, I should like to see the evidence produced, because hon. Members and the Miners' Federation can judge, and do in fact know what collieries are profitable and what collieries are not. I have still to see a single shred of evidence that the incidence of accidents is more general at unprofitable collieries than it is at profitable ones, and if I am right, the hon. Member's argument must be that at all times, in order to make a few more pence per ton, we are all ready to sacrifice safety measures. Is that right? Is that the hon. Member's allegation?
Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is in possession of the House and has the advantage of us.
Mr. Peake: If the hon. Gentleman will not answer my question, I will proceed with my remarks. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are apparently driven to this position, that even collieries which are making good profits are prepared to risk their whole undertaking and the lives of their men in order to make a few pence more per ton.
Mr. Gordon Macdonald: Who said this?
Mr. Peake: I have not had an answer to my question from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), so I take it that he is assuming that position. I am glad to think that the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) does not. But if it be the profit motive in industry which is the cause of accidents and of the neglect of safety measures, we have, fortunately, one period in the coal industry when there was no profit motive operating at all, and that was the period of coal control between 1916 and 1920. That was a period when wages were high. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) told us the other day that this was one of the few decent times that the miners had ever had.
Mr. G. Griffiths: Between 1916 and 1918?
Mr. Peake: I said between 1916 and 1920.
Mr. Griffiths: The owners were guaranteed their profits.
Mr. Peake: That is exactly the point I am making. From 1916 to 1920 wages were high. Hon. Members opposite can testify, and did, in fact, testify the other day, that it was one of the few decent times miners had ever had. It was also the fact that the owners were guaranteed their profits; whether they made any or they did not, they were guaranteed the three years' pre-war average of profits, and if they made any more, 95 per cent. went in Excess Profits Duty. That was the period when there was no profit motive in that industry at all, and it is a most remarkable thing that during that period, as you would expect, efficiency fell off tremendously. The output per man-shift went down from just over a ton to 14 cwts., but it is also remarkable that the fall in efficiency was accompanied by a very rapid rise in the accident rate. The accident rate went back practically a generation during those four or five years of coal control.
I do not want to put my argument too high, and I want to be absolutely fair; I am not prepared to say that, if you took the profit motive out of the coal industry to-day, you would necessarily get an immediate rise in the accident rate, but the statistical evidence does not prove that removing the profit motive from industry has the slightest bearing upon the accident rates at all. There were, of course, other causes at work in the later period of the War which accounted to some extent for the rise in the accident rate. One cause was the poor quality of labour. I want to be perfectly fair.
Mr. G. Macdonald: Older men.
Mr. Peake: Yes, but it is a very remarkable thing that with the falling off in efficiency you have a big falling off in safety. Efficiency and safety are, I believe, more closely connected than some hon. Members think. I believe that efficiency in the coal industry very largely means that you are looking after the comfort and welfare of your men.
Mr. Jenkins: It is not a parallel at all.
Mr. Peake: If, for example, you improve your efficiency by improving your ventilation, and you use steel-arched roads and so forth and generally improve the working conditions of the mine, you find your output per man goes up.
Mr. Bevan: There have been conferences held recently about safety in mines and there have been suggestions urging that steel arches would be a very great contribution towards the reduction of accidents caused by falls. How is it that these steel arches have not been more universally adopted and why have they been adopted so slowly?
Mr. Peake: The hon. Member must not by his interruptions provoke me into expressing opinions that might lead to a certain amount of feeling between the two sides of the House. He knows as well as I do why steel arching has not been introduced more quickly. I am a great believer in it, and want to see it introduced much faster than at the present time, but there have been on both sides of the industry prejudices to be overcome in regard to the introduction of steel supports. I have said that I believe that efficiency and safety very largely go hand-in-hand. I would go so far as to say that economy and safety, using the word "economy" in the true sense of the word, also go hand-in-hand. There are two things that we must aim at if we are to improve the conditions of safety in the pits. The first is by better inspection to try and bring the more backward mines up to the level of the best. The second is that we should make inspections more frequently at the mines where trade unions are weak. Where the trade unions are strong, generally speaking, conditions are fairly good. It is in the smaller districts where the unions are weak that we should concentrate the efforts of the inspectorate.
May I say this in conclusion? Let nobody think that I, or any other coal-owner, am at all satisfied with the rather disappointing progress which we have made in the reduction of the accident rate in the last four or five years. After all that has been done by the Safety in Mines Research Board, by the Colliery Owners' Research Association, by the introduction of hard hats, and all sorts of protective clothing, it is very disappointing to find the accident rate as high as it is to-day, and that very little progress
1896
has been made in the last five years. I think that is largely clue to the introduction of the new technique in coalmining, to which we have to try and adapt ourselves. In doing so, let us hope that some good suggestions may come out of the Report of the Royal Commission which is sitting at the present time. As a coalowner I shall welcome and support anything which that Royal Commission suggests. I believe that the field of safety is one in which co-operation between both sides of the industry can be more fruitful at the present time than in any other.
6.36 p.m.
Mr. Ritson: We have listened to a speech from an hon. Member whom we are always glad to hear, because of his practical knowledge. He is sometimes very frank and very honest with regard to his own side. I am pleased that he has acknowledged that the inquiry, as such, has not been satisfactory in its personnel or in its findings. I am sorry, however, that he was led away into dealing with another form of safety. We are not dealing with supports but with reports on one of the most tragic accidents that this country has ever experienced. We are dealing, among other vital things, with the neglect of ventilation, which is so vital.
The Minister made a mistake at the beginning of his speech. When it was clear that we should ask the Government for a day to discuss this subject there were general murmurs among hon. Members opposite to the effect that we were trying to rake up old sores, that we were causing grief again among the people who have suffered, and that it would be better to hide it away and to let it remain buried, just as the men are buried in the mine. I can assure the Minister that there is not a widow, a sister or a mother among those who have suffered who would not reopen the wound if by so doing they could help to improve matters for the future, through their suffering. If there is one thing of which we are proud, it is our women and their bravery. Rather than this sort of thing should happen again, we know that they are willing to have the whole thing reopened at any time.
My hon. Friend who moved the Motion has a remarkable knowledge of pit work. I have come across many people with certificates whose knowledge of mines was

1897
a disgrace. I am not saying that out of any disrespect. There are some people in this category who have had no practical experience. You cannot carry out the working of a mine without good experience. I remember one man who had a salary of £1,500, coming to me at 6 o'clock in the morning and talking in the most elementary way about the work that I should have done. Fortunately, he was followed by the practical manager, who corrected him at every point. In Durham some of the best managers we have ever had have come up from the bottom; men we have reared. They have not had the sort of education you get at a university, but by their practical knowledge they have been of far greater use to the owners and the men than many people we are relying on to-day.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) went into details from the technical point of view, and I shall leave the other side to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I want to put a practical point of view. Nothing has pleased me more to-day than the statement of the Minister that the Government will try from now onwards to prevent a recurrence of this sort of disaster. I wish he would get on with it. He need not wait for the Royal Commission's findings. Surely, he has regulations under which he can give the inspectors instructions to examine the pits more frequently. I should like to correct him on one point. He said that the inspectors never had any complaints. Surely, he does not expect the management of the mines to shout stinking fish. Is the manager of a mine going to send for a Government inspector, who may censure him for neglecting his duty? We are noted in Durham for having our own inspectors. Complaints are made to the Miners' Union, not monthly but daily. Let me give an example. We had one case with regard to ventilation in a pit, 3,000 feet deep. It was said that the miners' lamps were going out. I sent to Newcastle for the head inspector. He is still alive and a very practical man. The manager objected to the inspector going down a pit on a Saturday, at that hour. He said it was most unusual for a Government inspector to go down on a Saturday. The inspector was manly enough to tell the manager that it did not matter what the danger was, he was going down to stop it, and
1898
he stopped work in that part of the pit until the matter had been cleared up.
I would ask the Secretary for Mines not to ask his inspectors to wait until there is a complaint from the owners but to go and find out for themselves. When there has been an accident to a man's limb they make inspection, and when there has been a fatal accident they go to the place where the accident took place, but the inspector does at the same time go with his lamp to see whether there is any gas. He inspects the place where perhaps there has been a fall of roof, or where there has been an inlet of water. I would ask that the inspectors should go round more regularly seeking for possible gas and water. Those are the two things of which we are most afraid. In this particular case, Peter Lee, who was at the inquiry, whom I have always considered to be one of the most practical pitmen in the country, told me that in his opinion it was the bottleneck area that caused all the trouble. I am sure that when the pit is cleared Peter's prophecy will prove to be true. The Minister ought to press on and get the pit cleared and examined. He says that it will be very costly. We have had some severe explosions in North Cumberland, but we have opened the pits within a reasonable time. I believe that the cost of opening the pit would be more than repaid if we could find something practical that would help us in the future to avoid such disasters.
I hope that the Minister will deal with the question of the inspectorate and safety regulations fearlessly. Speaking for Durham, we have been fortunate in the last few years. We have examinations by an inspectorate, fully qualified, as well as inspections by men brought up in the mines. The Minister referred to Mr. Emerson. He inspects the colleries from which I come. Not only do we have him, but we have our own local inspectors, and we make payment from our own union fund. In every district there is a lodge meeting, where the first things attended to are complaints by any men if there happens to be danger in their area. In such a case a deputation goes the next day to the pit, and if they are not satisfied with the manager's reply, we bring in Mr. Emerson immediately. We have local inspectors appointed every quarter, and they do their duty and make reports if they find anything that is dangerous.

1899
That is not only a good thing for the men, but a good thing for the owners also.
The House must consider this matter with an unbiased mind, because the general public have come to the conclusion that the miners are entitled, after this horrible disaster, to have all the regulations which are necessary for safety in the mines. I can assure the Secretary for Mines that we shall give him all the support we can if he will apply greater pressure on the mine managers. I can assure him that we shall never be safe until the inspectors are independent of the owners. The hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) said that there were certain owners who do not bully their managers for output, but for every one he can name who does not do so, I can name 50 who do. Very often deputations are told that the manager does not have his own way and that he is being pressed for output. I have known managers who have come to the pit in the early morning and examined it for gas or water, and I have also known managers who did not attend to their work in this way.
It is no use having this Report unless some action is taken upon it. We may take the legal side or the technical side, we may condemn or wish for punishment, but the thing which matters most now is that from this catastrophe we may learn how to provide for better safety in our mines. I am thankful to the Government for giving us this opportunity to discuss the matter. We cannot help but feel very keenly about it. No man who has lived in a colliery area and experienced any of these disasters can speak calmly. It is most difficult; and what we are all concerned about is that we should all work towards the one end—the greater safety of the life of 750,000 men who ask that they should not be in danger of being trapped like rats in our mines, and that whatever laws and regulations are necessary, no matter however expensive, they should be put into force in order to give them some confidence in their arduous work.
6.49 p.m.
Mr. Lyons: It was said by the Secretary for Mines in the course of a careful, complete and highly sympathetic review of the situation that this discussion was inevitable, but that he hoped it would
1900
not reopen the grief of many of those concerned in the disaster. After listening to the graphic and moving picture put before us by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), with his great knowledge and capacity, I make no apology for intervening in the Debate although I do not represent any coal mining constituency or interest. This appalling document dealing with a great calamity cannot be discussed in any watertight compartment merely by those who represent coal mining areas. It reflects on the whole national conscience; we all have a responsibility to do what we can to ensure that the tragedy which underlies this document does not occur again. In my judgment it is incumbent upon all of us to regard ourselves as the custodians of people working in dangerous occupations and to do what we can to co-operate in any matters for their safety as representatives of the national conscience.
The national conscience was touched very much by this occurrence and by this Report. It is a very sorry document. I do not propose to dwell fully on extracts from it but I want to ask one or two questions. I want to know, in the first place, what additional safeguards will be taken so that we may have some assurance that there will be no recurrence of a tragedy like this. In the course of Sir Henry Walker's observations he says that in this pit there were
"continuing offences against the law to which, as I consider, numbers of the workmen were parties, and in general it was a distressing feature that there were so many workmen, who, according to their evidence, knew of and were alarmed at conditions which they considered dangerous and yet took no steps to secure for themselves or their fellow-workers the protection to which they thought they were entitled."
That represents a state of things which no one would defend. In his Report Sir Henry Walker makes it clear that
"work on 95's and 24's faces should have been stopped until the place (105's) being driven to the dip from 81's level had holed, and, in order to get more air into the inbye districts, 29's districts should also have been stopped and the leakage of air direct into the return by way of 29's Turn prevented."
I go a little further and read with regard to ventilation—a very crucial factor in the consideration of the catastrophe:
"The total quantity of air in the intakes in January was 35353 and in July 43,103 cubic feet per minute. It was unfortunate, of course, that the last figures, those for July, were, to the manager's knowledge fictitious,

1901
but even when they are substituted by those for June the answer given by the manager was merely misleading, for, although the quantity of air according to the figures in the Dennis intake had increased from 35,353 cubic feet per minute in January to 43,065 in June the proportion of those quantities which arrived at the place where the first split was taken off was again according to the figures 90 per cent in January and only 51 per cent. in June."
And Sir Henry Walker says on this matter:
"I can place no real reliance on these figures, but it was on them that the manager said an improving state of affairs was shown, whereas they showed exactly the contrary."
When we read things of this nature we are appalled at what is happening in defiance of all the regulations this House has passed to ensure safety in mines. May I ask what is being done to end this state of affairs? Is this inquiry to be in vain? Are there going to be inspections which are real and regular inspections, and reports which will be real reports? Can we enlarge the channels for complaints and reports? It occurs to me that if there had been proper investigation and regular inspection of this mine by officers of the Department this state of affairs could have been detected before the loss of 265 lives occurred to bring this matter under the notice of Parliament. Are these real inspections? Are there real inquiries as to whether the law is being carried out or not and are the results of these investigations properly and promptly acted upon? I am at a loss to know why this state of affairs was not found out if a thorough inspection was made by the officers of the Department appointed for the purpose.
I do not want to cast aspersions upon anyone, but I should like to know how it is that these flagrant breaches and evasions of the law could go on in these monumental proportions, not isolated breaches of the law, not apparently some winking at a technical omission here and there, but these wholesale evasions of the many regulations and carefully thought-out safeguards to secure the safety of people employed underground. The hon. Member for Gower gave us a grim and sad story. Hon. Members who do not represent mining areas would be the first to support the Government in any additional measures that may be necessary to secure greater safeguards for those working in dangerous occupations. If new legislation is wanted, I hope it will be
1902
brought in forthwith. If the safeguards are not sufficient, let us have more; if the inspectorate is not sufficient, let us have more, and a more thorough inspection.
I want to say a few words on the nature of the tribunal. A gentleman called Mr. Joseph Jones, who sat as an assessor, took a very strong view. He called this mine a "veritable gasometer." He regards it as a place seething with danger. That is a very serious allegation by a gentleman who was appointed to a serious and responsible duty and whose abilities were understood by the Minister who appointed him. It is a very serious thing, and I say at once that I very much regret that appraisement of evidence, giving rise to a finding of that nature, should be entrusted to a tribunal like this. In my view it is essentially an inquiry for judicial consideration. It must not be thought that I am saying a word of criticism about Sir Henry Walker as to the work he has done or as to his capacity. But no ministerial officer should be in charge of a tribunal dealing with a matter in which great public issues are involved. I venture to think public opinion is quite clear on this point. The Secretary for Mines said that it was all very well to be wise after the event and make a suggestion ex post facto. I want to remind the House that on 23rd November, 1931, a statement was made by Mr. Isaac Foot, who was then Secretary for Mines, in connection with the Bentley Colliery disaster, a terrible explosion in which 43 persons were killed. Mr. Foot, a gentleman of great integrity, assiduity and courage, in reply to a question, said that he was going to hold an inquiry as soon as circumstances would permit. I asked him—and this was on 23rd November, 1931—
"When such an inquiry is held, in view of the great public interest involved, will the hon. Gentleman consider making representations to secure the services of one of His Majesty's judges to preside over the inquiry?"
He replied:
"Such a course would be entirely unusual and would not serve the purpose of eliciting information."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1931; col. 47, Vol. 260.]
I thought then, and I think now, one of His Majesty's Judges should be the Court to inquire into any such calamity. We are dealing with what, I hope, is a very unusual occurrence. Bentley was a great tragedy. Gresford is a tragedy of much bigger dimensions. I hope the

1903
Minister will not say that, because it is unusual, such a proposal cannot be considered if, unhappily, we have other tragedies in future. When there is a disaster like this, entailing loss of life, I urge the Minister to say that it is a case where no officer of his Department shall preside over the inquiry, but that it is a matter where the experience and independence of one of His Majesty's Judges should be obtained so that we could have it inquired into by one in whom on every ground there is complete confidence, and the public feeling can be allayed as much as possible. Mr. Jones was right in a statement he made that one of His Majesty's Judges should be allowed to preside over an inquiry of this grave public magnitude.
Everyone wants to see that so far as is possible there is brought into the common pool every device to make the lives of these men more safe. Let it not be said that this was discussed to-day and then dismissed without further consideration. I am sure the Minister is not going to do that. Arising out of this we can lay the foundations for a better and safer livelihood for miners; we can see there have been errors and omissions which should never have happened; that there was in this colliery a state of affairs wholly indefensible, so indefensible that they will, I trust, never be allowed to occur again; and that if the inspectorate has to be increased one hundred-fold, it will be done so that we may never see another tragedy of this kind.
7.4 p.m.
Mr. G. Macdonald: I was displeased and rather surprised at the statement the Minister made. I wondered during some parts of it whether there had been an explosion, and I am certain I was not helped to find whether there was anybody responsible for it. The Minister staggered me by the manner in which he tried to whitewash the inspectorate. We have no desire to blame this person or the other, but we realise that there is somebody, somewhere, responsible for the tragedy that happened at Gresford. Sir Henry Walker made no attempt to whitewash the inspectorate, although he was head of the Department. He was prepared to come down heavily on the inspectorate. Surely either the workmen, or the officials, or the inspectorate, or somebody could have done something to avoid the
1904
disaster. It is as well, if we want to avoid a repetition of it, to find out on whom the responsibility did lie.
The Minister of Mines is dissatisfied with the lack of complaints by workmen where complaints could be made, and I was glad to hear him say so. I hope that if the Press reports this discussion to-morrow there will be a headline—"Minister of Mines dissatisfied with lack of complaints regarding unsatisfactory conditions in mines." But it is necessary that the workmen should be told that it is in their own interests, and that it is their duty, to make complaints of everything they find unsatisfactory. I want the Minister to remember the reason why they do not make these complaints. Sir Henry Walker knows, and he has told us—a fear of victimisation. I do not know anyone who has been actually sacked the moment he has made a report of the presence of gas. Mine managers do not do things in that way. They wait for another occasion and try to suggest that the dismissal is due to something else. The hon. Member for the University of Wales (Mr. E. Evans) had some doubts regarding victimisation. He has not been a miners' agent, or he would have had no doubts. The Minister, to achieve his object, must let the men know that if they do complain they are in no danger of victimisation.
I can believe, as Sir Henry Walker suggests, that the men who knew things were wrong at Gresford were not prepared to say so. If the Minister is anxious that that possibility should be removed, he must do something to enable these men to realise that they are in no danger of unfair treatment if they find anything unsatisfactory. I hope he will repeat the need for complaint by workmen where complaint should be made. Sir Henry Walker singles out for mention the deputies. He has told us that he has doubts of the evidence they submitted. The evidence of the deputies is very conflicting. I want the. Minister to understand that there is no more important official in the mine than the deputy. If he will go further into this question he will find that to some extent they are the most important officials where explosions are concerned. But a deputy to-day is regarded as something in addition to being an official to carry out the regulations. He is expected to help to increase the output.

1905
I know in Lancashire a number of deputies who have been dismissed because they paid so much attention to their statutory duties that they were not able to pay sufficient attention to output. I can give the Minister a number of names of deputies who were dismissed because the output from their districts was not regarded as satisfactory. There was no hint of complaint regarding their statutory duty. If the deputy neglects his work it will lead inevitably to a serious accident. Again I ask the Minister to consider doing something to enable deputies to carry out their statutory duties even at the neglect of output. I had a case in my own division of a number of deputies, all employed at the same colliery, who were treated very harshly, although they were carrying out their statutory duties, because they were accused of neglecting output. Names can be given to the Minister if he would like to have them.
Even the under-manager is entitled to be considered. To get and keep a job as an under-manager to-day is not easy. The number of mines is decreasing and there is greater competition, and the under-managers are much concerned about pleasing their employers. I submit to the Minister that these things can be done immediately. I was pleased that he told us something he was going to do immediately. It is possible to tell the workmen, and the deputies, and the under-managers, and possibly the managers, too, that if they are concerned in a case of dismissal consequent on or subsequent to the reporting of the presence of gas, or the spending of money in dealing with the presence of gas, they will be entitled to have their cases heard by a tribunal. There is no other way. I have known workmen dismissed six months after they had made a report of the presence of gas. The manager had forgotten all about the report. I have my doubts. When a person is dismissed consequent on the reporting of the presence of gas, or of doing something unacceptable to the manager, surely there should he some tribunal. I do not mind if the Minister says the divisional inspector should hear the case. I would accept it.
The Minister told us there is nothing wrong with the inspection, and that all inspectors have been kept on. I am pleased they have; I want to see no one dismissed. But there are inspections and
1906
inspections. After every fatal or serious accident there is an inspection, but the inspectors attend the scene of the accident and nothing more. I am not complaining about that, but when I am told that there have been a certain number of inspections over a certain period, I know it includes inspections of that kind. I do not expect the inspector to go underground and look round all the workings on the same day as he attends for that purpose. Those of us who have spent a few years underground know the difficulty of getting about, and the strain on the physique. But if the Minister can increase the inspectorate without waiting for the Report of the Commission now sitting—I do not think Sir Henry Walker would stand in his way—it would permit a greater number of inspections to be made.
It is suggested that a 12-monthly inspection would not necessarily have prevented this accident at Gresford. I agree, but I suggest that it would have been more likely to do so than the three-yearly inspection which goes on to-day. The purpose of this Debate is to prevent the repetition of such disasters. The Minister has to wait for the Report of the Commission, but I do not want him to tell us that there is nothing more he can do immediately because the Commission is sitting. The hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) can give a case of two colliers being sacked because they prevented a shot-firer from firing a shot in the presence of gas. If the Minister is going to deal with the question of workmen neglecting to complain and the question of deputies, he must realise that behind all their reluctance to report things which endanger their own lives as well as the lives of their fellow workers, there is some very strong reason. I appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in his reply, to make some reference to the provision of machinery whereby men who are dismissed as a consequence of making a report on the presence of gas will have a right to make an appeal to the tribunal which he sets up.
This Debate will end to-night, but like the hon. and learned Gentleman for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons), I hope that attention to the disaster will not end to-night. There is involved the whole question of the 750,000 men who are working in the mining industry. A short time ago there was an explosion in my

1907
own division, and I lost 27 of the finest friends I ever had. I should have lost 270 if the explosion had taken place two hours later, for it happened that the shift was being changed. I have met the dependants of those men during the last few weeks, and I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the remarks in the early part of his speech were entirely unnecessary. We have raised this issue solely with a view to trying to prevent others being bereaved in the future. I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman, in his reply, to indicate that he is prepared to take immediate steps to deal with this terrible problem.
7.18 p.m.
Major Hills: Like my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Leicester (Mr. Lyons), I do not at present represent a mining constituency, but nobody can have represented a Durham Division for 16 years without hearing a great deal, and learning something, about coal. I do not propose to enter into the details of this lamentable accident, although I agree with all the criticisms that have been levelled against the condition of things that prevailed at Gresford. I want to see whether we cannot find some way of preventing these catastrophes. Are they to continue, not quite to the same extent, but still with a terrible loss of human life, or can we find some better way of ensuring safety in mines? I assure the Minister that he will have public opinion behind him in whatever measures he takes, no matter how drastic they are, for people's minds are profoundly stirred by the general question and by this terrible disaster. My hon. and, gallant Friend would signalise his tenure of office in a very noble way if he could leave the conditions in mines better than they were when he became Secretary for Mines.
From the Report and the speeches that have been made, it is clear that the ventilation was very bad at Gresford, and that gas was present, not occasionally, but constantly and in large quantities. I want, to plead for the use—if possible the compulsory use—of some sort of automatic gas detector. Does an automatic gas detector exist, could its use be made compulsory, and if so, would its use prevent some of these terrible accidents? I plead for the use of such a detector, partly because of its efficiency
1908
and partly because of its impersonality. If such a detector were used, the detection of gas would not depend on a human being, who might be fallible. A reference has been made to victimisation, but if there were an automatic detector, all fear of victimisation would vanish. The mine which we are now discussing was, above all, one in which some sort of automatic alarms ought to have been fitted. Mr. Joseph Jones referred to 14's as a veritable gasometer. I ask the Minister whether there are other mines in which the conditions are as deplorable as those which are disclosed in the Report, because if there are, it is a very serious matter. Moreover, does not the Minister think that it is reasonable to believe that automatic detectors would have given warning in time at Gresford, and have saved those lives? If so, has not the time for action arrived?
I am not an inventor and am not personally interested in any detector, but some hon. Members were present at a demonstration and saw that if the ventilation was stopped where we were, the electric lights would become red. That was a genuine demonstration. I do not know whether the instrument is reliable, because I am not a scientist and cannot decide the matter from that point of view, but certainly it was a genuine experiment, and was carried out, not by the owner of the instrument, but by the management of the pit. It seems to me that the case for an automatic alarm is a very strong one. I would like to ask the Minister whether, since the accident, the Gresford management have installed any sort of automatic alarm. I know there is a Royal Commission on Safety in Mines, which has not yet reported, and I conceive that this is one of the questions on which it will report; but I think the matter is so important that if my hon. and gallant Friend, whose sincerity the whole House knows and recognises, could expedite the report on this special question, which seems to me to lie right at the heart of the means of preventing deaths from such accidents, it would be something which he might very properly do. It would be lamentable if, when the House has been unanimous, as it has been to-night, the Debate concluded without some definite action being promised which would prevent such accidents occurring. I believe the Minister has

1909
power to compel owners to instal any sort of gas-detecting instrument which he pleases. Has not the time arrived when he should take such an action? I know I am pleading with one who is just as anxious as I am to save these lives, and I should be glad if he could tell me whether—and, if so, how soon—any steps are to be taken in that direction.
7.27 p.m.
Mr. G. Griffiths: I am sorry the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) is not in his place, because I wanted to have two or three minutes of cut-and-thrust debate, in accordance with the advice which you, Sir, once gave us. The hon. Member for North Leeds said that the owners did not appear to be worried about costs. I happen to know, as a working miner, although I am not quite up to date, that the owners, the managing directors, the managers and the under-managers are very much concerned about costs. When I worked at the coal-face, and had so much dead work for my mates and myself to put in, the deputy said to me, "George, I want thee to leave a bit of that over this week, because the under-manager has been on to me about my costs." That is not something I have read in a book from America or somewhere else, but is something I have heard repeatedly. The under-manager is told to work the district on cheaper ripping costs, or somebody else will have to do the job.
I am sorry the hon. Member for North Leeds is not here, because he comes from Yorkshire, as I do. I made a statement in the House the other week concerning nystagmus. The hon. Member is an owner and he came to me afterwards and said, "I did not know that was appertaining; I went to see the general manager and asked him, and he said it was." It is of no use the hon. Member for North Leeds trying to "put across" hon. Members on these benches that cost does not count, because we have proof that if there are two under-managers in a firm, the manager pits those two under-managers against one another on the cost of their ripping. Anybody who has read the Report knows that at Gresford the deputies were falling out with one another on the question of ventilation. It was a most disgraceful affair. The colliery was badly ventilated. One deputy said to the
1910
other, "Come on, don't keep that door open too much, because it is robbing me of my ventilation."
Anybody who looks at the plans belonging to Gresford can tell immediately, if he is a practical miner, that it was impossible to run that pit as they were running it without something very bad happening. Anybody studying the plan could see a little bit of a district here, and another there, and still another round the corner, and that they were trying to filter air round this and round the other. The under-manager stated in his evidence, "If I can only get 25 per cent. of the air that comes down the shaft around the face, I am satisfied." I know that one or two of our chaps say, "We are not bothered about what has happened." I am bothered about what has happened, because I do not want it to happen anywhere else.
On Whit Saturday in May, 1899, I worked my last shift in the North Wales coalfield, and I swore that I would never do another shift in that coalfield, and I have never done one since. I came off frightened. I was afraid of my life, as a lad 21 years of age. When I got the paper on a Saturday morning stating that there were so many men in an explosion at Gresford, I said, "I know what has happened. There are some serious breaches of the Coal Mines Act, or this thing could not occur." I want to relate this as a personal experience. On 21st September, on a Friday night, a man who had been in the same class as I in a Church of England school was going to his work in that pit, 6½ miles away. He was going to catch a train at eight o'clock at night, and one of my relations said to him, "Jack, you are going for the last time." He said, "Yes." Miners, when it is the last shift, say "the last time," because they begin a fresh week after Saturday. It was the last shift of the week, and my relative said to this man, a great, big, smart fellow, "You are going for the last time." His name is in this Report, and his address too. He turned round to my relation and said, "Yes, we shall go for the last time, and never come back. We shall be blown to hell," and he is down that pit to-day. He was in the same class as I was at school.
These men knew what was happening in the pit, and they knew what would occur, in a sense. Somebody on the

1911
other side says, "Why did they work?" Economic circumstances forced them to work. That is why they worked. They went with a lamp in their hands knowing the conditions as far as that pit was concerned, and I say quite frankly that these men were sacrificed at the shrine of profit. As the number of men increased at the pit, the number of deputies decreased. I have the figures here, and they show that in 1930 there were 1,533 underground workers and 34 deputies, and in 1934 there were 1,692 men down and 31 deputies, a reduction of three deputies and an increase of over 160 men. There is something else. In 1930 there were 49 coal-cutting machine men, and in 1934 there were 60, or an increase of 11. There was an increase of 160 men altogether and a reduction of three in the number of men who were responsible for the safety of the mine. There was speeding up, and the production increased from 406,037 tons to 476,076 tons. They were pushing them for production. When I read this Report, my hair stood on end. Men who are supposed to be managing districts firing 45 shots—a deputy, not a shot-firer—besides superintending the safety of the district. I am not the same as Mr. Brass, who says that you ought to let deputies fire. I say that no deputy should fire any shot at all.
The right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) referred to the automatic fire-damp alarm. Before I came into this House the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) and other miners' Members had put questions, not only to the present Minister of Mines, but to the Minister of Mines previous to him, and also to Mr. Isaac Foot when he was Minister for Mines. They had repeatedly said, "Look here, when are you going to issue an order to make it law that every mine must have an automatic firedamp alarm?" The reply has always been, "Well, we are just waiting; we are finding out," and while they are finding out, men are being blown into eternity. We had an answer to-day by the Minister of Mines which stated that during the last 10 years there have been 113 explosions. I have had four in my own division since the Gresford explosion. I woke up one morning last August, and there in the clover were 58 men blown to eternity, and on the grass in another field there were 19 men, from an ex-
1912
plosion, and over the other side, on the front corner of my house, there were 10 men, and all inside a few months, in my own division.
I am quite satisfied that a lot of these explosions could be prevented if the Minister of Mines would pluck up courage and say to the coalowners, "There has got to be an automatic fire-damp detector in the pit." What is the cost of one? I have a report here of a colliery company which has put these things in. They are working them, and the cost of this Ringrose detector—I do not care whether it is a Ringrose or another rose as long as we have it—is 0.076 of a penny per ton. They have had it going now for some few years. What does the automatic fire-damp alarm do? It is, as the right hon. and gallant Member for Ripon said, not a matter of a man testing for gas himself. It is there. It is the bobby. You can set it to 1¼, 1½ or 2½ per cent., and you cannot get an explosion in a mine unless there is at least 5 to 5½ per cent. of gas there. Immediately this automatic alarm gets to 1½ or 2½, according as it is set, this light is there, and to the man who is on the face, to the lad who is on the haulage, and to the man who is in the ripping, or wherever he is, the lamp says, "There is 2½ per cent. of gas here; you must get out."
I have been inspecting pits as a workmen's inspector, and I have said to the deputy or to the under-manager, "Look here, how much percentage is there here?" "Well," he has said, "about 1½ or 2 per cent.," and then he would argue with me as to whether there was 2 or 2½ per cent. I had an under-manager during the War argue, when I was doing a pit inspection, that there had to be 2½ per cent. of gas in the general body of the air. I said, "God have mercy on you, for in that case I do not know where we should be. Is that your reading of the Act? We will ask the inspector to-morrow, and he shall decide who is right." He said, "Never mind, George, don't bother." What I want to emphasise about this matter is that if this detector had been in that Gresford pit, this explosion could not have occurred. I make bold to say that.
We have three reports here, and all three give a different conjecture as to where the explosion occurred. Suppose it occurred where Mr. Brass says he

1913
thinks it occurred, near the clutch at the junction of 29's district. If there had been an alarm in that main face, there would have been nobody going to that telephone, because the alarm would have given them notice. If the explosion had occurred, as Sir Henry thinks it occurred, at the shot-firing, then the men would have had the automatic detector close to them, and it would have said, "There is 2½ per cent. of gas here," and the men would have had to clear out. Let me say that I am with Mr. Jones 100 per cent. and that personally I feel that the explosion occurred at that 14's district, a veritable gasometer, with men 20 yards from the face. One of the deputies kept telling some of the men that they had got to crawl on their stomachs to fetch something out. Why did they crawl on their stomachs? It was because the gas was above and the air below, but there would have been no sending them to crawl on their stomachs if they had had this detector there.
I am pleading with the Minister. He said, "We cannot do very great things, you know, because this Commission is sitting, and we have to wait to see what it recommends." You have no need to wait for the report of the Royal Commission on Safety in Mines before you can send out an order to say that every pit must have this automatic detector in the pit. If that were done, I am satisfied that there would be far fewer explosions than we have had. It is a most remarkable thing that we are getting more explosions now. We had two in Derbyshire the other day, and we are far more fearful with these coal-cutting machines than we were in the past. If the cutter strikes a piece of brass or piece of stone and it sparkles, there is an explosion.
We are desirous that this thing shall not occur as often as it is occurring now. I would have liked to read a part of a report of a big colliery company who have put this detector into operation, but I feel that I am standing in the way of some of my colleagues. The report states that two or three times when danger has come upon them almost like a thief in the night because of doors being smashed by a runaway, or because of the ventilation having broken down owing to a fall of earth, the gas detector has given the alarm. The ventilation of the pit at the beginning of the shift was good, there was a fall on the main part of the face,
1914
and the detector warned the men to get out. If there had been no detector there the possibility is that the men working on piece rates would never have got out. The piece rate system should be abolished. We are told that it cannot be managed, but you have no piece rate in the Army, or the Navy, or the Civil Service. You have no piece rate at the Post Office. We do not work on piece rate here. If we were paid by piece rate, a lot of chaps would get nothing at all. If this detector had not been there the possibility is that there would have been a localised explosion on that face.
I agree with every word that Mr. Jones says about future inquiries. If there is an inquiry at the present time the divisional inspector determines the entire course of it. He also selects the witnesses and decides the order of calling them. Fancy leaving this to the divisional inspector at Gresford, who stated that he had not time to go to the pit. I am not going to be so mealy-mouthed about inspectors as some other Members have been. Sir Stafford Cripps put this question to Mr. Boydell:
"So that you really have not had time to make inspections at Gresford? Is that the position?"
The answer was:
"That is the position."
Dominy made 13 visits and did not report on any of the conditions in the mines. Probably it was because 13 was an unlucky number. Sir Stafford Cripps put this question to Mr. Charlton:
"You are entirely dependent upon the sub-inspectors or junior inspectors, whoever it is who visits the pits, to draw your attention to anything?"
The answer was:
"Yes, I am afraid so. That is the position."
This is a man who has had to arrange all these inquiries. He is the man who calls the witnesses. I do not believe that Sir Henry Walker, the chief inspector, or whoever may be chief inspector in future, should be the chairman of any inquiry. He sits as the judge, and he is there as prosecutor and as defendant. I hope that in future, if anything like this happens again, we shall have a judiciary as chairman. I hope that out of Gresford, at least, something will come to save our lads who are risking their lives to produce coal for the nation.
7.52 p.m.
Mr. A. Henderson: I intervene in this Debate with some hesitation because, like some other hon. Members, I have no practical knowledge of coal mining. Having regard, however, to my association with the Gresford inquiry and to the fact that with my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) I sat through the 30 sittings and heard all the evidence, I hope that I may be allowed to give the House some of the impressions I formed. May I make a personal reference to the Commissioner? Speaking for myself, I found him to be the personification of courtesy and patience, for he made no attempt to prevent any evidence being adduced no matter how irrelevant it may have been. I think that those who may be a little disappointed with his Report should, at any rate, have regard to the fact that not only the Commissioner and his assessors, but all of us who were engaged at that inquiry, were very much handicapped by the fact that we had not been able to make an inspection of the area of the explosion and were thereby, as the Commissioner points out in this Report, debarred from verifying and checking up the great mass of evidence.
At the same time, I agree with those hon. Members who have criticised the nature of the tribunal. I was glad to hear what the Minister had to say in regard to the future. Although I am not prepared to say that the chief inspector is one of the guilty ones, I say that he has an indirect responsibility, and perhaps a direct responsibility, for the operations of his inspectors. In so far as any inspector has been guilty of a dereliction of duty in any way, to that extent the responsibility comes upon the chief inspector himself. I agree with the suggestion that has been made from various quarters that in an inquiry of any magnitude in future—and heaven forbid that one should take place—I hope that someone other than the Chief Inspector with judicial experience, and assisted by assessors similar to Mr. Brass and Mr. Jones, will be appointed to conduct the investigation. While it was not possible to make any inspection of the area of the explosion and thereby determine a fortiori the cause of the explosion, we were and are to-day confronted with a mass of evidence on both sides dealing with the conditions obtaining in the mine prior to the ex-
1916
plosion. I feel that the following conclusions which I propose to put to the House are incontrovertible. First, with regard to the management of the mines, the impression I formed at the time, and which to some extent has been corroborated by the findings of the Commission, was that the management was both slack and inefficient, and, so far as night operations were concerned, there seems to have been no management at all. The Commissioner himself refers to this fact in these terms:
"Mr. Bonsall (that is, the manager) visited the several districts in the Dennis Section from time to time, but as he explained in evidence, for the two months before the explosion he had spent most of his time in the South-East Section where the belt conveyors were being installed. He had been underground during the night shift, but it was so long ago he could not remember when."
That is the evidence of the manager himself. Then we have the under-manager, Mr. Williams, who incidentally—and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Gower and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) would agree with me—showed himself to be a good practical workman. He had the supervision of the Dennis Section during the day shift, and he said that he was underground during the night shift on the 27th April and 7th August, but, apart from these visits, he was not able to exercise any supervision during the night shifts. Then Mr. Frederick John Davies was an overman who was supposed to be in charge of the night shift and exercise supervision in the Dennis Section where the explosion took place. The Commissioner states:
"The last time before the explosion that he had been in the face of any of the workings in the Dennis Section was on 21st August when he was along the face of 14's district."
If my recollection is correct, in my cross-examination of Mr. Davies he admitted that he spent the whole of his time in the South-East Section of the pit, which is away from the Dennis Section, and that it was only now and again that he ever took the trouble to go into that part of the mine.
I should like to express my agreement with the conclusions of the Commissioner on pages 112 and 113 with regard to the general supervision of the mine. The Gresford case exemplifies the dangers of what we might call financial control, that

1917
is to say, control by those who are only interested in making as large dividends or profits as possible without having any practical mining experience whatever. In this case, unfortunately, instead of having the common sense to appoint a first-class manager those persons with financial control appointed a man who was obviously not of strong character and, according to the Commissioner, was a man who was no doubt overridden by those above him. The Commissioner says:
"I think it is a mistake to work large collieries without some able mining engineer in authority and superior to a manager, known under the Act as 'agent.' The person appointed to such a post needs to be of strong character and able, if necessary, to resist those in control of the commercial side of the concern."
Unfortunately that was not the position at Gresford. Apart from the manager, under-manager and overmen, there were 14 or 15 deputies in charge of the various districts of the mine. Section 14 of the Act of 1911 provides that a deputy shall make such inspections and carry out such other duties as to the presence of gas, ventilation, safety of roof and side and general safety as may be necessary. He is required to devote his whole time to the job, except that he may be employed in measuring work done in his district or in firing shots.
What happened at Gresford? I have here a record of one of the deputies, Herbert Thomas, who was deputy in 29's district. As hon. Members know, the law requires that each deputy shall make two inspections every shift. Taking as a typical case 30th May, 1934, I find that it took him from 12.15 to 2 p.m. or 1¾ hours to make his inspection and if he makes two inspections per shift that means that he should spend 3½ hours inspecting his district. In addition to spending 3½ hours inspecting his district, I find that Mr. Thomas, during July and August, 1934—and this applies to other deputies in this pit—was engaged in shot firing and on some days he fired as many as 40, 46, 50, 48, or 44 shots. Hon. Members will recall that the Commissioner stated in his Report that the shot-firer, engaged on nothing else but shot-firing, should not exceed 40 shots during his eight-hour shift. Yet we find that this deputy was engaged in firing from 40 to 50 shots and spending another 3½ hours in carrying out his duties of inspection under the Act.
1918
I formed the impression that the trouble at Gresford was due to the deputies, most of whom seemed to me to be intelligent, practical men, concerning themselves more with production than with safety precautions. I agree with the Commissioner that deputies ought not to be allowed to do any shot-firing. They ought to be concerned solely with safety precautions. I go further and suggest that the Minister should consider the advisability of removing deputies from the control of the management and making them responsible to the mines inspector or some other independent person. May I deal briefly with the conditions in 14's district to which reference has already been made? We have it on the authority of the Report that it was impossible to say how much air was circulated in 14's district and apparently no tests were taken as required by the Act of 1911. On page 39 of the Report the Commissioner says:
"What quantity per minute actually did pass into 14's district no one knew as it was never measured as it ought to have been."
On page 58 he goes on to say:
"I am satisfied that after the fall on 24th May the ventilation on 14's face was not adequate. The position before that fall occurred was unsatisfactory and could only become worse as the face was taken further to the rise. After that fall the position was so precarious that drastic remedies were needed and should have been taken. Work on 14's face should have been stopped at least until a return aircourse … had been made. But even then the position, owing to the small quantity of heated air available for ventilation, would still not have been satisfactory and would not be until the whole system of ventilating all the districts in the Dennis Section of the mine had been reorganised."
I have two comments to make on that statement. First, work was not stopped. Secondly, the ventilation system of that section of the mine was never reorganised. The evidence at the inquiry made it clear beyond dispute that from May gas formed once or twice a week in 14's district. It seems to have been the regular habit to clear it by using the instrument known as a "banjack" from which comes compressed air. There may be persons bolder than I am who would express a definite opinion as to the cause of the explosion. Personally, I believe it is not possible to determine definitively the cause of the explosion at Gresford, having regard to our inability to penetrate into the explosive area. But if

1919
I were to hazard an opinion I should express agreement with the statement of Mr. Joseph Jones that the conditions in 14's district, in effect, made it a veritable gasometer and that it is the place which is more likely than any other section of the mine to have been the scene of the actual explosion.
In any event, the evidence adduced at the inquiry showed, to my mind, a most lamentable state of affairs in this pit. It showed slackness and inefficiency, reflecting the gravest discredit on the management of the colliery. One can only hope that, as a result of the Gresford tragedy, public opinion will be so aroused that the country will take the view that too much cannot be done to ensure the welfare and safety of those men who work in the bowels of the earth. In my view it is no exaggeration to say that the coal-miners of this country are in the front-line trenches of our industrial system. They have a greater rate of mortality in their ranks than those engaged in any other form of industry and I, for one, believe it is the duty of Parliament to do everything that is humanly possible to ensure that the conditions which, beyond a peradventure, existed in the Gresford Colliery prior to this terrible explosion, can never occur again in any other coal mine in this country.
8.10 p.m.
Sir Arnold Wilson: I listened to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) with interest, with respect and indeed with admiration, because he had a most difficult task and he performed it with restraint and delicacy. I have no miners in my constituency and I have little personal, practical acquaintance with the industry, but I wish to raise two points, one of which has not yet been mentioned, while on the other I disagree with what has been said. The point which has not yet been mentioned is the responsibility of the directors of the company which owns the Gresford Colliery. I have not read the evidence, because it is not in accessible form, but everyone who has any knowledge of company management knows that there is a regular system under which the management of a mine, or any other industry has to report periodically to the board of directors. The directors have to receive and consider at intervals certain reports in a certain form
1920
and upon those reports they have to minute and pass resolutions. I feel that the inquiry fell short of completeness in that it did not, as far as I know, consider the relations between the management of the mine and the directors. The directors have, in law and in common sense, a practical as well as a financial responsibility and I doubt whether any inquiry can be regarded as complete which does not deal fully with that point.
The second point I wish to mention is in regard to the loud praise which I have heard—and with which I disagree—of automatic gas detectors. I am not an expert, but I have read a great deal of technical literature regarding the Ringrose and other detectors, and I am by no means sure that they would bring about a great measure of safety. There have been certain explosions recently in mines in which gas detectors are used. The mere fact that they are automatic does not necessarily bring safety. They may be inefficient, they may be tampered with and, in the case of one, at least, I understand that shortly after it has given the alarm it goes out, and having been extinguished ceases to be a detector. There is a vast amount of technical information on the subject, but I think we should do well to await the decision of the Royal Commission before asking the Minister to make drastic and universal decisions in regard to a device which has been very fully investigated by the Department and by the industry but has not yet been found sufficiently useful to be regarded as suitable for compulsory adoption.
A third point which I wish to make concerns the principle of inspection by sample, to which the Minister referred as the principle adopted by his Department. It requires, in my respectful submission, more consideration before it is regarded as a fixed principle of inspection. When one is dealing with machinery, making surveys of ships or boilers, for example—I admit there is a great difference between the two—the inspection is two-fold. First there is the actual inspection of the object itself, and, secondly, there is a careful survey of the plans and specifications to ensure that the ship or boiler comes up to specification and that those parts which cannot be examined are in accordance with the plan as originally drawn. I feel that mines ought to be inspected on

1921
the basis of an examination by the inspector of the plans and that every alteration ought to be reported to him in order that there may be a theoretical as well as a practical inspection. I feel that every mine ought to be inspected regularly, and not necessarily by sample.
If more inspectors are required let there be more, though I cannot help thinking that if they were better supplied with means of locomotion, and given greater facilities to do their work, it would be less costly and perhaps more effective; for there is not an unlimited supply of first-class men for jobs of that sort. It is my own feeling, too, that they have in some respects suffered in status in the past ten years, due, perhaps, to the fact that their pay is not sufficient and their prospects not good enough. It is not altogether desirable, in principle, to have a body of men who for the whole of their lives are required to devote themselves to the sole duty of inspections of a particular type. They are apt to become weary of their particular job, and not to do the work quite so well as they might if they had an opportunity of a somewhat wider range of inspection. I suggest that the whole question of selection, training, pay and promotion, and the relative status in the Civil Service of mines inspectors compared with other inspectors, should receive more consideration than it has yet had, perhaps by the Royal Commission.
As to who should conduct inquiries, I submit, although I am aware that I am not in agreement with a good many of my colleagues, that the case has not been made out for the appointment of a judge in all or most of these cases. Section 83 of the Act is perfectly clear, and lays it down that the Minister may appoint any competent person to conduct the inquiry. It is open to the Minister to appoint anybody he likes who is competent for the purpose. When the airship R.101 met with an accident the present Home Secretary was appointed to conduct the inquiry, owing to the outstanding importance of the circumstances. If it is a single aeroplane which has crashed, an inspector from the Air Ministry is considered sufficient. I think that every case, as the Minister has said, should be judged on its merits; but let us remember that if we in this House express the opinion that a Ministerial tribunal cannot in certain circumstances be trusted
1922
to do justice we are doing a great disservice to the Civil Service as a whole, and we cast a doubt on a great deal of the legislation which we ourselves pass.
Every Ministry has placed upon it the responsibility of making inspections, and in every case its own staff and the conduct of its own Department may be called in question. Issues of vast importance are habitually placed before Ministerial tribunals to be tried, and the evidence has to be weighed—these great housing schemes, involving the fate of thousands of persons, and every sort of question is now decided by a Ministerial tribunal virtually without appeal. An hon. Member remarks that there is an independent inspector, but the issues are often directly relevant to his Department. The Ministers' Powers Committee dealt at great length with that point, and I think it is a great mistake to assume that a judge is necessary in order to do justice. Thank God, in this country we can do justice, and we do do justice daily, without the assistance of judges, and without the assistance of lawyers.
If we are to have all these cases dealt with by judges it will be necessary to have a greatly increased staff of judges. Not all of His Majesty's judges are competent to deal with highly technical questions such as those involved here, and I would far rather have a man who has spent his life in going down mines to judge the validity, the acceptability and the reliability of evidence than a judge who is not in any way skilled in mining and probably does not know the language of the pit or the language of the witnesses, and may well be advised by counsel on either side who do not know the language of the pit or the language of the witnesses. Let us think twice before we assume that a judge is the right person. In any case, the Miners' Federation have not, in the past 40 years, so far as I know, ever made the suggestion that anybody but the chief inspector of mines should hold these inquiries, and to the best of my knowledge they did not make the suggestion when the Gresford mining disaster occurred. The suggestion has come up later, and can be considered on its merits. We as a House of Commons have had these reports placed before us for the last 40 years, and never yet have we raised any objection to the chief inspector making them.

1923
That brings me to my final point. The law says that the report of the inspector must be laid before the House in full. My submission is that the words "in full" should be interpreted to mean "with all the evidence that has been given before the tribunal" It is impossible for us Members of Parliament, who, unlike the hon. Member for Gower and the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson) have not heard the whole of the evidence, to read it in the Library. It runs to rather more than 3,000 pages, it is unindexed, and is quite impossible to handle; and we are at a great disadvantage, we laymen, in the presence of persons who have not had to read the evidence but have listened to it, which is far better. Many of us would be willing to read it if we could get it in print and with an index. Suppose this were a matter which was to go before the House of Lords. The law would require the whole of the evidence to be printed in order that that High Court, the High Court of Parliament in the House of Lords, might consider it acting as a judicial tribunal. For this purpose we here are a High Court as well, and I submit that when a Royal Commission or a tribunal sits, and the law requires its report to be placed before us, there ought in ordinary circumstances to be copies of the evidence available in print. It seems contrary to all good principles for us to have the evidence quoted at us in sections and not to be able ourselves to get back to the original evidence.
As a student of social subjects, with a certain aptitude for discovering the facts which I require by a careful study of the evidence of Royal Commissions, I know that very few of the really relevant facts in regard to the great social issues of the past 50 years could have been discovered from the Reports of the Royal Commissions themselves. They emerge from the evidence, and if you want to get down to the facts in any case you must have the evidence itself and the cross-examination. I urge the Minister to consider whether he will not in future publish the evidence along with the Report. A former chief inspector, Sir Richard Redmayne, wrote to the "Times" recently to express his own opinion that the evidence itself was often of far more permanent value than the Report in pre-
1924
venting accidents and in teaching other mine inspectors and owners. It carries conviction as nothing else can. Would it not be well for us to make it a principle in future in all mining inquiries to have the evidence printed and circulated, so that it may be purchased by every mine owner in the kingdom, circulated by the Miners' Federation and sent by the Mines Department to the inspectors themselves? There is a great responsibility on this House in all these matters, and we cannot exercise it properly unless we have all the documents, and to fail to print the evidence on grounds of economy is to fail to make use of one of the most powerful weapons of publicity we possess, namely, the Government printing presses and the Stationery Office.
8.24 p.m.
Mr. Ridley: I am very reluctant indeed to intrude even for a few minutes into this Debate, for I have never been required by my calling, as so many of my hon. Friends have, to run the risks of a miner's life; but I have been able to play the part of a spectator watching with admiration the courageous way in which other men face those risks. Nor should I have intervened in a Debate which is intimately concerned with so many hon. Friends of mine had it not been for a personal experience of my own. I have come to this House from a great mining constituency, and am proud that a non-manual worker has been given the opportunity of service of that kind within the House. Exactly a week ago to-day a telegram was put into my hands in the Inner Lobby telling me that within my constituency seven men the night before had been hurled to their doom in that South Normanton disaster, in the search for warmth, light and comfort for you and me.
I would not, if I could, distress the House by describing my experiences in that constituency, to which I journeyed the next day, of contact with bereaved wives and mothers, of going to hospital and seeing men who were so badly battered that they could hardly see at all, and of the inner consciousness to me of what a mining disaster means. I had never quite realised before, and I think that the House as a whole cannot realise, the long shadow which is cast by a mining disaster. Its disastrous consequences are not limited to death or physical disablement; they extend themselves even to

1925
mental disablement and distress. I visited, in the course of the day, a man in the middle thirties, a normal, healthy, virile man who had, 48 hours before, been within 50 yards of the disaster. In that 48 hours he had succumbed, a nervous wreck, conscious for the first time in his mining life of what fear in the presence of death really meant. One day that man will walk to the pit-head again to make his journey in the cage with a new fear in his mind for the first time of what that experience will mean to him. That shadow cast itself not only upon a man in the immediate vicinity of the disaster, but I could feel it in the whole of that mining constituency. There was a new nervousness, a new apprehension of what it meant to be in the presence of such an emergency. There is no need at this stage of the Debate to plead for the sympathetic consideration of the whole House in the face of sacrifice of this kind, which is made in order that you and I, outside the mining industry, in our civilian existence, may have warmth and light and comfort.
I suggest that, just as the Gresford explosion came definitely out of the condition of the Gresford pit, so does the condition of the Gresford pit come almost as inevitably out of the economic conditions of the industry. In every sense of the word it would be thoroughly indecent to make political capital out of a situation of that kind, and, whatever the temptation, every hon. Member has resisted it so far. I do not intend to succumb to it, but it would be dishonest not to speak what is in one's mind and to speak the truth as one sees it. I am sorry that the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) has had to leave the House. He made a contribution on the subject which was listened to with the greatest interest, but with which I must disagree. He entirely misunderstood what we regard as the economic distress of the mining industry. A succession of causes over the last 19 years has produced a cumulative effect that, economically, results in a desperate, terrible and sometimes even angry search for such restricted national and world markets as still remain for that industry.
There is a desperate search for world markets and national markets, in order that the industry may be able to keep itself afloat by dint of desperate measures.
1926
That keeping itself afloat means the maintenance of some sort of profit in the running of the industry, and in order to produce that profit, and keep the ship afloat in that fashion, desperate remedies and measures have to be applied. Price cutting of the most terrible character has meant wage-cutting of an even more terrible character. When wage-cutting reaches what may be called rock-bottom, other forms of economy just as relentless have been pursued and employed. On the point of that desperate necessity everybody becomes its slavish servant. The manager of the mine is compelled to do things because of desperate economic necessity which normally he would not only refrain from doing but would refuse to do.
I noticed a most unfortunate smile cross the face of the Secretary for Mines when an hon. Member on these benches was talking of the economic insecurity of the miners. It may be that anybody who does not represent a mining constituency does not understand what that means. It is easy for me to understand it, representing such a constituency, and to understand the position of the man who feels more than anything else, not the loss of his job, but the loss of those four walls within which is contained his home. It is easy for me to understand how, with economic insecurity surrounding him, a man cannot do the things within the provisions of the law that otherwise it would be an easy and incumbent thing for him to do. That desperate economic necessity drives everybody, and results in the almost complete abandonment, or at least a serious weakening, of the precautionary measures that could reduce to a point below which it cannot be reduced the insecurity of life below ground only if they were completely applied.
I shall not discuss the South Normanton disaster for fear I prejudice whatever inquiry may be made. I rose only to suggest to hon. Members on the other side of the House who have been kind enough to listen to this Debate that they will need not only the considerable sympathy which has already been expressed in respect of this grave disaster and others, but will need to have more courage and a public-spirited approach to this matter. They should see that the terms of the Motion now before us, which call for effective measures for ensuring that the industry is carried on under conditions

1927
of maximum safety, cannot be applied within an industry so organised that its immediate purpose is to use the most desperate methods possible to ensure a profit within the industry, even though that employment of desperate measures means, if not the abandonment, at least the very serious weakening of the precautionary measures that can alone ensure a minimum of safety. The analogy of the railway industry was falsely employed by the hon. Member for North Leeds, and who was quite unconscious of the fact that the economic interests of that industry, desperate as they are, do not compare with those of the mining industry.
Until the desperate necessity of making a profit out of the industry is lifted, no matter what precautionary methods are employed, we shall in this House not be able to discharge our social obligations under the existing situation. Two men, from the beginning of this Debate to the end of it, will have lost their lives in the search for the light, warmth and comfort which we need. I doubt whether we shall completely discharge the social obligations which are incumbent upon us until we have taken over the industry as a whole, and organised it, not on the basis of desperate necessity but as a social organisation applying itself to social purposes.
8.35 p.m.
Mr. Cape: I am rather sorry that the hon. Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson) is not in his place, because he put one or two very pertinent points. Unfortunately I have had to take part in a good many inquiries, not as gigantic as the Gresford inquiry, but of a similar character, and I can never remember any inquiry at which directors were put in the witness box to answer questions. Whether it is permissible or not I cannot say, but I cannot remember any case in which the Commissioner—and I have been at inquiries under three Commissioners—thought it incumbent upon him to put the employers in the witness box. With regard to the inspectors, the hon. Member for Hitchin said that these men would get weary and tired of the continual strain of inspections with no variation, seeming to imply that, once a man enters the inspectorate, he remains where he started, as a junior inspector. As a matter of fact, when a man enters the inspectorate as a
1928
junior inspector he has the same chances that every man in the Civil Service has of rising to the top. He becomes a district or senior inspector, then a divisional inspector, and perhaps in course of time he may become chief inspector. As regards the question of variation, he is removed from one district to another, and there are very few inspectors who have reached the position of divisional inspector who have not been in two or three districts in the coal mining areas of England, Scotland and Wales. I am not going to enter into the question of their salaries at the moment, but am going to deal with some of the points that were raised by the Secretary for Mines.
In the first place, I want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), who opened the Debate, and to say that we who have been miners thoroughly understood and realised what he meant by his vivid description of the miner's life. The Secretary for Mines, referring to the cross-examination of a witness by the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), stated that the fact that a man was a bad witness did not prove that he was not capable of his job. I do not know what sort of witness the Secretary for Mines would make if he went into the witness-box, but I can say that he would make a good advocate for inspectors of mines. Speaking from personal experience, I have no complaint to make against any individual inspector of mines; all those who have been in my district, whenever I have called upon them to examine a pit or a part of a pit, have responded at the earliest possible moment. But, taking the whole thing generally—and that is what we are reviewing to-night—I am not satisfied with the manner in which the inspections are carried on. If there are not sufficient inspectors, more ought to be appointed, because to my mind the inspector of mines is a responsible person, and I have always looked upon him as one of the strong links in the mining community between the owner arid the worker. Reading the evidence given at the inquiry, one finds a rather alarming state of affairs. Mr. Jones, in his report, says with regard to inspections:
"The evidence revealed that the visits paid by His Majesty's Inspectors to this colliery have been both insufficient and ineffective"

1929
He goes on to point out that of 13 visits made by Mr. Dominy all were made at times when there had been accidents, and no reports as to the condition of the mine were made on those occasions. I suggest to the Minister of Mines that, when an inspector makes an inspection after an accident, that should be regarded as a special occasion. When he goes to inspect a mine or part of a mine, he goes with the specific object of looking particularly for danger, and there is far too little inspection in our mines to-day. Moreover, most of the inspections made in mines are made by the junior inspectors. That cannot be denied, and in fact we know that it is true. It may be that, when inspectors are promoted from juniors to seniors, the higher the promotion the less work the inspector has to do, but I want to suggest to the Secretary for Mines that, the higher the office that a man reaches, the more important it is that he should visit the mines in his area. I do not, of course, mean that that should apply to the Chief Inspector of Mines, because it would be a practical impossibility, but I think there is room for vast improvements in regard to inspection.
The inspectors of mines are not incompetent men; they are all competent men and thoroughly understand their job. At least, that has been my experience. I hope that, as a result of the new instructions which the Secretary for Mines has sent out to inspectors, they will understand clearly that not only the Mines Department but this House expects from them more inspection than there has previously been in the mines of this country. The Secretary for Mines made, as I have said, a good defence of the inspectors, and told us point blank that he could not see anything wrong that they had done, but immediately afterwards he told us that as many changes as possible were being made, short of changing the Coal Mines Act itself, which could only be done by new legislation. If, however, the inspections had been done as they should have been done, what would be the need for sending special instructions to the inspectors? The fact is that the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows perfectly well that the inspection is far from perfect, and I believe he has done something to make it more perfect than it was.
With regard to the question of the judicial capacity of the Commissioner or
1930
the chairman of an inquiry, I have as much respect and esteem for the President of the Mineworkers' Federation as any man in this House, but that does not mean that, simply because he says that something ought to be done, I agree with it. I am not going to say that until I have considered it from every possible angle. Then, if I think it is a good thing, I will back it up and, if not, I will not. In regard to the Chief Inspector of Mines, I think my colleagues have made it quite clear that no one doubts his competence to deal with problems of that kind. I have probably had more experience of him than anyone in the House. I have been down pits with him where there have been explosions when he was deputy chief inspector and since he became Chief Inspector. He is not only a good technician and a man of wide knowledge of mining in all its phases, but he is a good practical man as well. I have sat with him at inquiries and heard his judgments, and every mining Member is quite satisfied that Sir Henry Walker is competent to conduct them. But there may be circumstances which would make it necessary that a legal man should preside at inquiries of that kind. There is one thing that I disagree with in this Report:
"One of these workmen said, Robert Jones (night shift deputy) would only ram one hole at a time. We have tried him to ram more but he wouldn't'"
Sir Henry goes on to point out that many workmen connived at some things that the deputies and shot-firers did which were against the regulations and the method of procedure. I do not think it is right to attempt to ride off on that, because the deputy is a higher official than a workman. He is like a sergeant in the Army, and the private has to obey him. If a deputy is so weak as to allow the men to tell him what he is to do, and he himself believes it is dangerous, the sooner that man is out of the pit the better for everyone. If a man says, "I want two shots," the deputy has the sole right to say, "No, that will not be done," and the man cannot compel him to do it.
In 99 cases out of 100 the mines manager will believe an official before he believes a man. I once had a case which I thought was impregnable, and the official against whom the charge was made was unable to put up a defence which would convince anyone. The manager said, "This is my official. I

1931
appointed him to give me information. I have every reason to trust him, and I cannot take the word of this man against his." I do not want to put anyone in the dock, but I cannot refrain from saying that to my mind the management of this colliery from top to bottom has been haphazard, and it seems to me that there has been no co-ordination of any kind. Whatever safety appliances are put into operation, there is still the human factor. Every official in the colliery must have confidence in the others and there must be an exchange of views and frank and free discussion before you can get security for the men. The late manager at this colliery, one would think, would be competent. He was not a new man. He had been for three years assistant manager and under-manager, and he seems to have been a man who should have real knowledge of the colliery throughout. The officials were all practical men. The one weak point to my mind was that Mr. Bonsall was not strong enough to assert himself as manager and allowed officials below him to do as they liked. No exchange of views took place, and the result was the disaster that we are discussing. We have entered into this Debate in the same spirit as that in which the Minister finished his speech. We want to do everything we can to help his Department and all his officials to do all that humanly can be done to safeguard the lives and limbs of our men better in the future than has been the case in the past.
8.53 p.m.
Sir Frederick Mills: I intervene in the Debate because this is one of the subjects that I had in mind when I first came into Parliament. My first and most important object was to try to get tariffs for the steel trade and next came the question of safety in coal mines. I, for one, do not resent this discussion, as was rather hinted by one speaker above the Gangway. However unfortunate the occasion may be, this discussion must do a very great deal of good. I am afraid hon. Members above the Gangway are inclined to rely too much upon inspection. I well recall the catastrophe 10 years ago, and the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) brought it vividly back to my mind when he said that a colliery owner was alarmed when he saw a pit explosion announced on the newspaper
1932
placards, because that is how I learnt of the one at Ebbw Vale. I left my flat to go to South Wales when I saw from a newspaper placard that there had been a pit explosion. That was the first intimation I had of the disaster when 51 lives were lost. The reason why I was not advised, though I was the chairman of the company, was that the managing director and the chief managers of the mine were lying gassed below ground or had been rescued.
That brings me to the next point, and I am rather disposed to resent the expressions that have been used by hon. Members above the Gangway that output and not safety are the first considerations. At Ebbw Vale we had the advantage of a managing director whose name was one with which to conjure in South Wales. He was well known to all the South Wales Members of Parliament, and had the highest technical knowledge. There was a great number of colliery managers also with very high technical knowledge, and I am rather disposed to agree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Workington (Mr. Cape), that unless you get everybody in the pit working towards the same end, you will not get very much from inspection at intervals. However, it was the explosion in our own colliery, one of the finest collieries in existence, supposed to be well designed, well planned and well managed—and it was not only unaccountable at the time, but I do not think that the cause was ever really discovered—which set me thinking. I have not been a collier, but I happen to be an engineer and have had 50 years close association with collieries, and I went to America to see what things were like there.
I made a speech in this House on 3rd May, 1932, which occupied several columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT, and if any one is interested, I invite him to look at it. That speech has one singular characteristic. Nobodv has taken the slightest notice of it. The hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey) says, "Hear, hear" I wonder if he is right. I described what I saw for myself in America. They have a system working at several collieries, and they are raising 30,000,000 tons of coal a year under that system. The whole system is different from what usually obtains in this country. The rotation is quite different. The drilling and cutting are done on one shift, and

1933
the fire boss, as they call him, comes in, and he and his mate are the only people in the mine when the shot-firing takes place, and for two hours after that there is nobody in the mine at all, while the ventilation, which is twice as much as that of any mine in this country, takes out the products of combustion and makes the mine safe. Then the filling shift comes along. Curiously enough, nobody is paid on tonnage, and nobody at that time was getting less than five dollars a day, and, still more curiously, none of the coal comes up the shafts. It is loaded on to a belt and comes up an inclined plane.
The point I want to make is this: I may be wrong, I may be, as I said in that speech five years ago, a fanatic or a madman, but I should like somebody to examine that speech, and, better still, I should like to hear of some experts going out to America and looking at the mines for themselves. I venture to say to the House of Commons, "You cannot afford to throw out this story of mine." I am either right or I am wrong. When I came back from America I called all the pit managers together, including the chief colliery manager—and I would remind the House that at that time our output capacity was over 5,000,000 tons a year—and I explained the whole thing to them, and they did not pooh-pooh it. I asked His Majesty's Inspector of Mines to come over, and he thought that there was something in it. I spoke to Sir Henry Walker several times, and the last time I saw him, he said that some people in certain parts of this country had adopted the principles that I had set out. I want to ask the Secretary for Mines to-night whether he will be so kind as to get somebody to read my description, which I gave to the House five years ago, and get some competent people to examine it and tell the House that I am all wrong, or, on the other hand, that there is something to investigate.
9.1 p.m.
Mr. Jenkins: The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Leyton (Sir F. Mills) referred to an explosion that took place in Monmouthshire, and on that occasion I had the misfortune to be one of the first to go down that mine and see the conditions obtaining there. I do not want to describe the conditions that existed in that mine. The hon. Member has referred to the good condition of the mine, and
1934
I am not going to discuss that matter. That fact that he has discovered in the American mines what he considers to be a cure for our explosions, and the speech to which he has referred, will, I am sure, be so attractive as to cause a number of hon. Members to read the speech tomorrow. I think that conditions may be somewhat different in the American mines from what they are in this country. It may be more difficult under our mining conditions to avoid explosions than it is under the conditions obtaining in America. However, I believe that we have sufficient knowledge at the present time to be able to prevent disasters similar to those which have taken place.
The point we are discussing to-night relates to Gresford, the pit at which occurred one of the biggest disasters that have ever taken place in this country. I confess that when I read the Report of Sir Henry Walker and the two assessors—the Report is in three parts—I believed that he must have felt thoroughly ashamed of the conditions that were existing in the Gresford Colliery. I do not think that there can be any doubt about that. Sir Henry undoubtedly did his best to say as few unkind things about the inspectorate as he could, and what he did say was in very mild language; but if you read the Report of Sir Henry Walker carefully and the Report of one of the assessors, Mr. Jones—Mr. Jones uses much stronger language—you will find in the Report of Sir Henry Walker a very substantial amount of support for the Report of Mr. Jones. I am unable to see a great deal of difference between the reports. I had intended to quote substantially from the Report, but that has been done by a number of previous speakers, and as I believe there are other hon. Members who desire to speak, I do not intend to detain the House very long. But I hope that I shall be excused if I quote from the Report of Sir Henry Walker the passage in which he says
"I have an uneasy feeling that Mr. Bonsall was overridden. I ask myself why was the driving of 37's place stopped and the men sent to produce coal? Why was 105's drift not being worked continuously on all three shifts? Why was the scouring in 14's stopped instead of being pushed on continuously Why were men taken out of 14's return airway to work on the coal when there were absentees in the face? And, above all, why were not 29's, 14's and 95's districts stopped until the necessary alterations had been made in order to provide adequate ventilation?"

1935
He adds—
"And my uneasy feeling remains."
I think nothing could be more critical of our system of inspection in the mines than that observation. In another part of the Report Sir Henry refers to the bad system of working, the bad plan of working. During the time that that mine has been developing according to that plan, there must have been numerous inspections by the Mines Department. Why was it not discovered? If Sir Henry had an uneasy feeling about Mr. Bonsall being overridden, I am sure that those of us who are connected with the mines have a very uneasy feeling that there may be other mines in this country in a similar condition to that of Gresford. What guarantee do we get from the mining inspectorate that there are no such mines? Let me say at once that my relationship with the inspectors has been a particularly good one. An hon. Member for one of the Cumberland Divisions made reference to this subject. I have never asked help from the inspectors without getting it most readily. That does give one some satisfaction, but it is Gresford with which we are concerned.
While I have listened to the Debate there has been recalled to my mind an experience that I had in connection with an explosion in a district in which I happened to be the miners' agent. Eleven men lost their lives. It was a small explosion, as things go, but it was tragic enough. I remember that, during the inquiry, which was conducted not by the Chief Inspector but by one of the inspectors—I have no complaint to make against him—in the course of evidence it came out that one of the junior inspectors had suggested to the colliery company manager, two years before, that the system of ventilation was bad. No action was taken. The same system was persisted in, and as far as I know the junior inspector made no report to his superiors. I, as miners' agent for the district, knew nothing about it, and the result was that the colliery drifted on to the point of the explosion. That system of inspection is all wrong.
I doubt whether the mines inspectors have quite as much responsibility as they should have. How frequently does one see an inspector go into a pit, make an examination apparently satisfactory in
1936
every way and have come conversation with the people in control of the mine. He may make some suggestion for a change in the system of working, pointing out that an increase of ventilation is necessary and that the safest methods are not being adopted. The mine workers never hear any of that conversation. Would it not be wiser if the mines inspectors were made a degree more responsible and if they had to prepare a report of their examination and post it at the pit top, in the same way that the workers examiners have to post their reports, and the deputies have to post their reports? That would be a much better way of carrying on our system of examination by mines inspectors than the one we have at the present time.
It is perfectly obvious that the inspectors are not sufficient in number to carry out the work. It is a rare occurrence to see a mines inspector making a complete examination of a colliery. It may be that the whole of the roadways and the face workings of a colliery is anything from 30 to 40 miles in extent. The mines inspector may walk four miles of that area and leave the rest of the area untouched. It is fundamental to an effective system of examination that there should be divisions for the inspector of mines which are not too big for them to supervise effectually, and so that the inspector may know them well. I think the Chief Inspector refers to that to some extent in his report. If that were done, and if we had a greater measure of responsibility imposed upon the inspectors of mines, we should have better results.
Is there anyone in this House—I do not think there can be anyone in the Mines Department—who will accept the view that there is no interference with colliery managers by the colliery company? There can be no doubt that managers are to a very large extent overridden these days. Let it be remembered that there must be a higher percentage of unemployment among colliery managers than among colliery workmen. We have probably closed somewhere in the region of 1,400 mines during the period of depression. Colliery managers have been looking for work and many have been working under conditions that are extremely difficult, having pressure brought to bear upon them by their directors to reduce the costs of production.

1937
I might here relate a personal experience. On one occasion I was a deputy for a short period, and it was part of my duty to receive the cost sheets of my own district and the neighbouring districts, and if the cost was 2s. 8d. here and 2S.9d.there, I was asked: "Why is it 2s. 9d. in one case? Cannot you get yours down to 2s. 8d.?" I suppose that this is practised to a considerable extent at the present time. I know one man, in charge of a number of collieries, who has no knowledge at all of colliery work, yet he compares pit with pit and costs with costs and has no regard for the differences that exist in different pits. You cannot get exactly similar conditions in two different collieries. There are many people who do exercise a very considerable amount of domination over our colliery managers.
I was very much disappointed with the speech of the Secretary for Mines. While I feel that there can be no one inside the House who desires to persecute anybody, the people who have been guilty of bringing about the state of things at Gresford will have to be dealt with in another place, and it is not for us to judge them. I fear that the conditions that have obtained for so long in our collieries have created a number of collieries that may be bordering on the condition of Gresford. The hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) made a very interesting speech on the coal question, as he always does on any subject connected with coal mines. The early part of his speech was wholly admirable, but later he dealt with another matter altogether, as to whether it should be public or private control. He took a most unfortunate period, the period of the War. It was unfortunate for his own case, for it is obvious to everybody who has any knowledge of that period in the mines that there was almost total irresponsibility on the part of the people who controlled the mines. Money was spent unnecessarily, higher costs were involved and in many cases good mines were badly damaged during that period. Not only that, but the best type of mining labour was taken out and sent to the War and a large amount of labour unsuited and unacquainted with mining was brought in. I hope that matter will not be pursued any further.
The point which concerns us is whether we can by tightening up the system of
1938
inspection prevent such cases as Gresford happening again. That is the important thing. I think the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths) was anxious to place too much reliance on the automatic detectors. They may be used, but something more will have to be done. Collieries must be properly ventilated. We have sufficient scientific knowledge to know what causes explosions. It is true that you cannot go down and locate the exact spot where an explosion happens, but we know that gas is required and that coal dust is required, and that if you take away these two elements you do not get explosions. In Gresford colliery the roads were covered with much dust. These matters should be given much more consideration than they have in the past. Gas can be removed from a mine with proper care, and dust can be removed with proper care, but there is a tendency to neglect these duties on the part of the people who are in authority.
The question was raised as to whether or not the Secretary for Mines would have made a good witness in the dock. I remember on one occasion having some trouble at a colliery when the Chief Inspector of Mines happened to be there and rendered the men very excellent service. It was necessary to go further, and the Chief Inspector of Mines was called as a witness. He was not as good a witness for us as he was at the colliery where the dispute originated. Maybe he was right. The vital need is to create an inspectorate which will ensure proper supervision of the mines. Let us see the reports which the inspectors prepare, and let the workmen see them also. It would be a great help to them and would add to the responsibilities of the inspectors when they went into a pit. I want to say how greatly every hon. Member in the House must have admired the wholly admirable statement made by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) on this question. I have never sat in the House and listened to a statement made on such a difficult question with such restraint yet still with such force as the speech of my hon. Friend.
9.20 p.m.
Mr. Charles Brown: Most hon. Members will recognise that many classes of industrial workers have to undergo serious risks in carrying out their various occupations, and that our comfort and

1939
well-being depend very largely on the risks to which many industrial workers are exposed. But we shall all agree that no class of industrial workers ought to be exposed to unnecessary risks. The whole purpose of this discussion is, if possible, to obviate unnecessary risks to which some of us think the miners of the country are too frequently exposed. I gather that there are differences of opinion as to the immediate cause of the disaster we are discussing, but there is a consensus of opinion in regard to certain factors which we may take as predisposing causes of the disaster. Let me briefly summarise them under three heads. It seems to me that the three predisposing causes are, first, negligent colliery management; secondly, inadequate regulations; and, thirdly, a complacent inspectorate. I emphasise the word "complacent," especially after listening to the speech of the Secretary for Mines. I was profoundly disappointed with the tone and temper of that speech, especially when he talked about the mining inspectors. There may be another cause and I may be criticised for mentioning it, but you may have a few careless workmen responsible for some of the things which happen, and which we all deplore.
I want to say a word about negligent colliery management. At any rate, we know from this Report that there was one negligent colliery management in the country. No one can deny the fact that the colliery management in this case was woefully negligent, I would almost say criminally negligent. We suspect, and I think with justice, that there are other colliery managements who are equally negligent. I think we are justified in making that statement. We are not silly enough or fools enough to believe that any mines are, run for philanthropic reasons. They are not. We know that they are run for profits and dividends, and, consequently, it is not difficult to understand that a colliery management in certain circumstances may not be enthusiastic about enforcing mining regulations. They may be an obstacle to the making of quick profits and large dividends, consequently they have no enthusiasm for regulations. Indeed, the character of the industry and the way in which it must be carried on make it very likely that in many cases it is easier
1940
than it would be in other industries to evade the necessary regulations.
When we take into consideration all the facts involved, we have every reason to believe that not only in this case but in many others colliery managements are negligent, and therefore they must have some responsibility for what happens in a disaster such as we are discussing. I am glad to hear that the Secretary for Mines has issued or is about to issue instructions, and is examining the question whether new regulations can be made. It is obvious that present regulations do not meet the situation. We have been informed by the hon. Member who speaks as a coalowner of the revolution that has been brought about by the introduction of machine mining. He told us that a much greater quantity of gas must necessarily be liberated in machine mining than under the old methods. That being so, special precautions should be taken to meet the new situation. I live in a part of the coalfield where, during my lifetime, explosions have been scarcely known, but within a relatively recent period there have been four—Bilsthorpe, Grasmore, Markham and ten days ago South Normanton, a colliery where until a few years ago it was considered safe for men to work with naked lights. Yet in that colliery, now that machine mining has been introduced, we have had a serious explosion.
These facts seem to point to the conclusion that the new methods of mining have rendered obsolete some of the regulations to which importance used to be attached, and have created conditions which demand re-examination, and, if necessary, new legislation to meet them. With regard to complacent inspectors, I will try to substantiate the statement I have made. On page 89 of the Report I was glad to see the passage which deals with a matter referred to by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) in his admirable speech opening the Debate. The chief inspector said:
"I hope that I am not exceeding my function in saying now what I have held for many years that miners should be members of some effective trades union. That opinion is based on the grounds of safety, with which alone I am concerned, for I believe a well organised trades union, wisely directed, can be as potent an influence for promoting greater safety in mines as it is already in matters, for example, of wages and conditions of employment"

1941
When I read that passage I paused, and I felt pleased that in such an important document I should have found on record that statement. If what the Inspector says is true, the fact which I am now going to mention may well have some bearing on what has happened in the coalfield from which I come. During the last 10 years we have had no effective trade union in that area. The Noble Lord smiles. I know he happens to be a supporter of what I call an ineffective trade union.
Marquess of Titchfield: I take no part whatever in the fighting between the two trade unions in Nottinghamshire. I have been sought to be dragged in by both sides, but I have had nothing to do with them.
Mr. C. Brown: I am pleased to hear that there is some subject in controversial politics in which the Noble Lord does not take part.
Marquess of Titchfield: It is not politics. If it was a matter of politics I should take part in it. To my mind the fighting between the two trade unions is not political, and therefore I do not take part.
Mr. C. Brown: I am glad to have the Noble Lord's explanation, and undoubtedly it will be noted in the colliery areas in his constituency. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) made reference to the fact that there were colliery deputies who had been dismissed because they had reported gas, or because they had made some other report which the management did not like. It may be said that hon. Members do not attach much importance to general statements of that kind, but would much rather have instances of definite cases. I have in my possession the case of the dismissal of a deputy in November, 1931, and that deputy is, unfortunately, still unemployed because of the action he took then. He was dismissed because he would not consent to examine a number of districts in a colliery as he did not think that under the mining regulations he was being given the necessary time to do it. He sued the colliery company in the county court for his wages. I have a report of the proceedings in the county court, and the result was that he made so good a case on the ground of unjust dismissal that the judge awarded him the wages which he claimed.
1942
The matter did not end there. At various stages in the intervening years he has taken up the case with the Mines Department, and, as a matter of fact, with the Chief Inspector himself. I have not had time to go through all the correspondence, but in the early stages there was a tendency to offer him a job, or to take steps to find him one, if he would keep his mouth shut, but he did not—he took the case into the court, the consequence being that there was a disinclination to find him a job. The correspondence has gone on through the intervening years, and the man is still unemployed. I mention the case only because it is indicative of what happens to men if they are too persistent in enforcing mining regulations in some collieries. There is no doubt that men are frequently victimised because they seek to enforce the regulations from time to time. I am certain that most of my hon. Friends on these benches are of the same opinion as I am. If they have conversed, as most of them have, with men working in the pits, they will be convinced that the mining inspectorate at present, while it may be technically efficient—I do not deny that—is too complacent and too tolerant with regard to colliery managements which many of us feel to be grossly negligent.
9.37 p.m.
Mr. R. J. Taylor: I wish to intervene in the Debate for a few minutes on account of the great importance which it has on the future of miners. I feel that most of the points that are pertinent to the Report have been made, but there are still one or two more to which I would have liked to refer if there had been more time. After reading the Report and the evidence which I have had an opportunity of seeing in the Library, I have come to the conclusion that, although this was a most serious and terrible catastrophe, the circumstances are common to most miners. What was the position? It was a race between an explosion and the district finishing. If the district had finished, all would have been well, and the men would have gone to a new district, but the explosion came first. Those of us who are miners know the condition of the district that is finishing, and the neglect that there is to do the necessary repair work that will save men from accidents and disasters. Let the House remember that,

1943
while over 200 men were killed in this disaster, we are having one man or two men killed every day in the year for very largely the same reasons.
There is one important thing in the Report to which I would like to draw attention, and it is on pages 90 and 91, where "inspection by sample" is mentioned. I think Mr. Charlton was justified in mentioning that it was not physically possible for the Government inspector at present to discharge one-tenth of the duties which, in the inquiry, were held to be his job. Whose fault is it? I have not the time now to lay the fault at anyone's door, but the question which we have a right to ask is whether, as a result of this, the position will be remedied. Here we had a district in a dangerous condition, a district in the pit which it was clearly demonstrated was not even visited by the management, a district in which a return airway would have prevented such a dangerous situation, but that district was not being attended to or examined. What a pity the inspectors did not take that as one of the samples. In the new machine mining, with the pressure at which the pits are being worked and the men are being driven, we are becoming more and more dependent upon the inspectors.
It is of no use anybody in the House trying to believe, in a kindly and philanthropic way, that there is no victimisation in the pits. I know of men who have been walking in the streets since 1926. Let me tell hon. Members—and I wish the hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) was in his place to hear me—that there are a thousand different ways of getting rid of a man. All those ways are being used in the various coalfields. The men are not dismissed for the thing that they are supposed to have done, but the employers simply wait for an opportunity—wait until the man has exceeded the distance between his timber by six inches, or something of that sort. Such things can very easily be found. There is one very peculiar thing in mining, and it is that you can always have good timber and pretty well everything you want when the mine is working all right, when the output is all right, when conditions on the commercial side are satisfactory; but when things are going badly, it is a different matter. Let it be remembered that we have been
1944
going through a very bad time in the mining industry, and in South Wales—it is possible that Gresford came within that category—we have been fighting for trade and low costs.
One hon. Member said that the managers should be strong-minded men. The managers in the mines are as strong-minded as anybody here when they get their jobs; it is when they come up against difficulties from the commercial side, who have been selling coal too cheap after the manager has got it for them, that they become weak-minded. The commercial side say to the manager, "We are not making profits; we have to bring the costs down." It is then that the manager becomes weak-minded, and there is no one here who would not be weak-minded in the same circumstances. Therefore, I have not been astonished when managers have come to me and said, "When the Commission on Safety in Mines reports, if any legislation comes before the House, will you promise that you will fight to put managers under the State and make them independent of the companies?" I have not been astonished, because the managers have a dog's life when things are not going well. We want more inspectors, so that if there are to be sample inspections, we shall have more samples. There should also be some measure of protection for the managers. To conclude my remarks, time and again we have reported to the inspectors on various matters in our coalfields. We have reported through the coal-miners' leaders, men of respect and integrity. These men have taken matters up with the inspectors of mines, and the inspectors have gone to carry out their inspections. In order that we may have full and implicit confidence in the inspectors, why cannot we have reports of the visits after they have been made?
9.45 p.m.
Sir Stafford Cripps: I am frankly, rather disappointed at the extremely small attendance that there has been on the benches opposite daring the course of this Debate, both on the back benches and on the Front Treasury Bench, because I should have thought that a tragedy of this magnitude was a matter for the whole House of Commons and not merely for those Members who sit for mining constituencies, and I certainly

1945
hoped that the whole House would interest itself in the circumstances that arise for their consideration out of this extremely important Report. I hope that the House will not deal with this Report as a decent and effective burial both for the 265 men and boys who lie breathless and also for our own responsibilities for those men and boys. I was very glad that the task of opening this Debate fell to the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), because I should like to take this opportunity of saying—and I say it without any fear of contradiction—that he is more responsible for the effectiveness of this inquiry than any other man in England. It was due to his very large and extensive technical knowledge, acting behind the representatives for the North Wales miners in the course of the inquiry, that the facts as regards the tragic neglect at Gresford were able to be brought out and made public.
I think this Debate has been very useful and very instructive, especially for those Members who, like myself, have no direct acquaintance with the operations underground in a coal mine, operations which affect so intimately the lives and safety of hundreds of thousands of people in this country and which are the cause of daily anxiety to millions of women and children and dependants of those who daily go down the mines. It is tragic that it should require a disaster of this magnitude to shake people from their apathy upon this question of safety in mines and to make them realise the urgency of taking some effective measures in order to provide better protection for these men, who deserve so well of the community for the work that they carry out in dangerous circumstances. I think that the magnitude of the relief fund that was raised for the dependants of the miners at Gresford showed the very large measure of sympathy which exists in this country for those who are working under these trying conditions, but we want that sympathy shown in action taken to prevent a recurrence of such a tragedy rather than in providing a livelihood for the dependants of those who have been killed.
The fundamental difficulty, I think, is indicated quite clearly over and over again in the reading of this Report, especially if one is prepared to read between the lines of the Report. The drive for output and profits in a highly competitive industry, especially in times of industrial depression such as existed
1946
at the time of the Gresford disaster, leads to a wholesale neglect of the regulations and the law with respect to safety in mines. The hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) tried to prove that the profit motive in industry had really no effect upon the problem of safety, and he did it by the old and familiar method of setting up his own ninepins of argument and then knocking them down with his own counter-arguments, but I am afraid that he was not very successful in his endeavour.
The accusation against profit-making in industry is not that every employer is bad and inhuman, and indeed the hon. Member in his own personality would prove the untruth of such an assertion, but every mining employer must have profits made for him somehow or another out of the enterprise of mining if that enterprise is to continue within a profit-making society. The difficulty in making those profits varies very much at times and at different places in this country, but always the main drive in mining is for production at a low cost, and in that drive there is always the liability for a disregard of safety measures to arise in particular instances and always, of course, with the belief that that disregard will not result in any tragic accident, but that the management will be able to get through successfully, as the last hon. Member said, the finishing-up of some particular district where they do not think it worth while to put through new ventilation because it would be for so short a time and would be so expensive. That is precisely what happened in the case of the Gresford colliery, and I am perfectly certain that the management at Gresford honestly thought that they would get through with the job without an explosion. They took that risk, and that risk had the tragic results which we know.
Indeed, the case of Gresford proves to the hilt the facts that we assert. It proves that they neglected precautions which are detailed in the Report, taking men off working in the scourings in the 14's on to the face when it was urgently necessary for safety to complete the scourings, taking men off the 24's in order to put them on the face when it was urgently necessary to complete a new heading to get ventilation through to that district, and a number of other instances given by the chief inspector. Is it to be

1947
imagined that these people were such inhuman monsters that they did that just for the sake of doing it, without any motive behind them to drive them and to force them to that most undesirable end? The only conceivable purpose can have been to save money and in order to try to keep down the cost of production; and really the hon. Gentleman gave away his entire case when he stated that it was urgently necessary to increase the efficiency of the inspectorate and to have more investigations of conditions by the trade unions. With that necessity, I entirely agree, but why is it necessary? If the drive for profits does not increase the dangers to safety, why are these precautions necessary? Why is there need for the State to interfere in attaining this desirable state of affairs if there is nothing to prevent the mine owners and the managers from achieving it without? Why must the managers be forced, and why, if they are so anxious to assist safety, should there be all this elaborate structure of regulations and laws built up by the State in order to try, somehow or other, to ensure the men from exploitation in the mining industry? Indeed, it is not only in the mining industry. Why has the State had to legislate as regards the conditions of labour of men, women and children continuously for the last 100 years? The hon. Gentleman's argument is really completely disproved by the facts of the legislation of this country during the last century. It is not from wanton inhumanity that the workers have had to be protected by legislation; it is from the necessities of the drive for production coming from the profit-making system itself.
Nobody can read this Report of the Chief Inspector of Mines on the explosion at Gresford without coming to the conclusion that, for all practical purposes, there was to the knowledge of the management, to the knowledge of the owners and with the active co-operation of the deputies, a complete disregard of the law of the safety of mines in that pit. There has now been a most exhaustive inquiry as regards the conditions that prevailed in that pit before the explosion, and, although I do not agree with all that is said by the Chief Inspector, I should like to take this opportunity of complimenting him on the fullness of his Report and the length to which he has found himself able
1948
to go in the detailed and very strong criticism of the state of affairs that existed. I suppose that the reading of this Report must rouse everyone to a certain feeling of anger against those who are primarily responsible and to a determination, which I hope the Minister for Mines will carry through, to see that those responsible are punished in order that an example may be made to show that this laxity in the observation of regulations and law cannot, and will not, be allowed to persist in this country. There are certain lessons to be learned which, I hope, the House will take into account and act upon, as indeed, it must if it is to be faithful to the duty that it has to protect this large section of the community from dangers which we ourselves impose upon it in order that we may derive the vast wealth that we do from the coal mines.
I want to make it clear that, in my view, there can be no ultimate solution of the difficulties attendant upon this problem of safety in mines until the miners are made wholly responsible for their own safety by having the control of the mining operations. In other words, the conflict between profits and high production on the one hand, and safety and decent working and wage conditions on the other, will never be solved until the whole industry is taken out of the hands of private ownership. In the meantime—because we know that that is something which cannot be immediately accomplished—this Report discloses a number of matters which are capable of immediate remedy if only this House will have the strength to insist upon those remedies being applied. These matters fall under two main heads. There is, first, the proper enforcement of the existing law and regulations, and the second is the tightening up of those regulations in the light of the experience of machine-mining, which has enormously altered the conditions in the mines, and altered them in the direction of a great increase of danger to those who are working those operations.
Undoubtedly, the rapidity of working, as has been stressed by so many hon. Members to-night, and the concentrated drive for production which results from machine-mining, have greatly increased the dangers in the pits of this country, and especially in the dry and gassy pits such as Gresford. To my mind, the most

1949
serious aspect of this Report is the continued and wholesale disregard of the regulations and the law which undoubtedly created that condition of danger in certain parts of this pit which made it ripe at any moment, as the result of some casual mishap, to have an explosion of the magnitude and the distressing effect that we did in fact experience. That state of affairs persisted for months before this pit exploded and not one member of the inspectorate ever detected it. It is unfortunate, I think, as Mr. Jones has stated in his report, that this inquiry had to be presided over by the Chief Inspector as the Commissioner. I, as everybody else, do not wish to make any sort of attack upon him and upon his desire to ascertain all the facts as they were, but, obviously, where there is liability for serious criticism being levelled at the inspectorate for which he is directly responsible, it is almost an impossible position into which to put him to ask him to preside at the inquiry. It is not only a question of unconscious bias, which anybody in that situation is bound to have, but it is a question, as was mentioned by someone on the benches in front of me, of the public being satisfied that justice has been done and that the appearance of justice being done is also present in the circumstances of the tribunal which is inquiring into this matter.
I want to draw the attention of the House to one or two matters which illustrate the points I desire to make as regards the inspectorate not, I hope, vindictively against any individuals, but merely to state the facts in order that the House may decide what action ought to be taken as a result of the disclosure. Sir Henry Walker in his report states that there is some misapprehension as to the functions of the inspectorate and he says in the passage which has so often been quoted on page 90, that the principle of Government inspection has always been that of inspection by sample. At the very outset of the history of this tragedy comes the gross neglect of the inspectorate to make Gresford one of the outstanding samples to be inspected in the North Wales area. On page 90 he points out that no steps whatever were taken to warn Mr. Dominy, the new inspector, of the whole course of the history of the mine which was known
1950
to Mr. Shaw, the preceding inspector. Mr. Dominy had no document, although there had been many complaints, particularly as regards stone-dusting, in Gresford and those facts ought to have drawn Mr. Dominy's attention to Gresford as a particular point for continued examination. Instead of that, owing to what he admits was the neglect of the inspectorate, Mr. Dominy's attention was never particularly drawn to Gresford and unfortunately the most dangerous areas in that pit were, practically speaking, never inspected at all. Compulsory publication of the inspector's report which was suggested by one of my hon. Friends would, at least, have made it clear to everybody that no such inspections had been carried out and might indeed have shamed Mr. Dominy into doing his duty which, clearly, he did not do upon the reports which are before us. Let me give one or two examples. On page 16 will be found a case in which he made a visit in December, 1933, and the paragraph winds up:
"He did not visit 81's road to see the gas which was there but its occurrence he said was explained to him by the manager."
What is the good of an inspector, when there is an occurrence of gas in a pit, going to ask the manager about it. Yet that is what happens in this case. He does not even take the trouble when he is at the pit to investigate what is happening there. If hon. Members refer to page 45 of the Report, they will find another instance of a similar kind. This refers to a case where he went to investigate an accident in 14's district and the Report says:
"This was the only occasion on which an inspector had visited 14's district; the face then was comparatively little to the rise of the main return airway."
It was obvious to anyone; on the plans and on the workings, that they were getting into a dangerous area which a month or two afterwards the Chief Inspector says ought to have been closed and yet not a single inspector goes near the pit to see what circumstances are developing in that area. Then, again, there is the passage on page go to which I have alreay referred, as to the failure to visit Gresford properly. Again, the records of the mine, such as they were, were never inspected with any intelligence at all and it was not until the inquiry which took

1951
place after the explosion that it was discovered that some of the most vital records of the pit were not in existence. Such things as measurement of air at the splits, stone-dust samples not being taken month after month, when they ought to have been taken every month in particular places—those things were unknown to the whole inspectorate for months and years and this condition of affairs was consequently allowed to develop.
Let me refer the House to one or two passages in the Report dealing with that matter. On page 12 it states that measurements ought to have been made in a 109's district and in 95's district, and it was never discovered that they had not been made. On page 13 it states that the deputies' reports were not kept in the office of the mine, contrary to the provisions of the Act and it was never discovered by the inspectors that this had not been done. On page 40 one finds a reference to a similar state of affairs with regard to the ventilation doors. In this case there was a very important point about two ventilation doors in the main return which were never discovered until May, 1936, two years after the explosion, which shows that not a single inspector can ever have been through that main return—a perfectly tragic state of affairs. The inquiry was almost allowed to terminate with this vitally important fact, as regards ventilation, withheld from the Commissioner by the manager and others who swore that there were no methods of adjusting the ventilation by doors or otherwise at the bottom of the pit. It was some chance knowledge, coming perhaps anonymously—I know not how—to the Chief Inspector two years after, which enabled us to ascertain those facts. On page 75 of the Report one comes to what is really almost a fantastic position as regards shot firing. It says:
"Mr. Dominy went through the record of shots fired again and at that time, he said, it showed that no deputy or shot-firer was firing an unreasonable number of shots per shift—the deputies 'were firing round about 20 shots and the shot-firers about 40; not more than 25 or 45.'"
A little lower down we find this conclusion:
"My own conclusion on this point after reviewing the evidence is, that in the conditions prevailing in the Dennis Section, 40 shots was a reasonable shift's work for a shot-firer and no deputy should have been allowed to fire any shots except on special occasions."
1952
Mr. Dominy when he inspects the pit, not knowing the condition of the Dennis Section, poor man, never having seen them, says that shot-firers are properly allowed to fire 25 shots a shift! One could go on giving instances and I will merely refer hon. Members to other passages which I have not time to cite on pages 81, 82, 83 and 84 of the Report. There will be found the criticism of the Chief Inspector on the complete neglect of the inspectorate to detect the fact that dust samples were not being taken over a long period of time. He says it was inexcusable. On pages 86 and 87 we come to the question of overtime. The Minister had ordered a special inspection of North Wales. The inspector, Mr. Dominy, went down to look at the pit and never even asked a question of the manager. The manager said that if he had been asked he would have told them that overtime was taking place every Friday and Sunday. As the Chief Inspector found, in fact the regulations as regards hours did not operate in Gresford at all. In the circumstances of a pit such as that, to have large numbers of men working double shift is just the way to create an accident which is going to light the pit and, curiously enough, the accident happened on Friday night when the double shift was working. This House gets back a report and the Minister answers a question and says that he is satisfied that no overtime is being worked in the mines of North Wales. Now we know with what he was satisfied. This House was being grossly misled, because of the incompetence and negligence of the inspectorate on that occasion. The result, the tragic result, is that there was a complete failure to detect, whether by sample or otherwise, a state of affairs in that mine which Sir Henry Walker, now, unfortunately, 2½ years after the catastrophe, describes in these words:
"As far as 95's district the ventilation was gravely inadequate."
On page 36:
"It was a situation of great danger."
On page 63:
"Work on 24's and 95's face should have been stopped."
On page 117 he says:
"I look with grave suspicion upon circumstances existing in connection with 24's airway and 95's district as the origin of the explosion."

1953
As far as 14's is concerned he tells us on page 38:
"It was not proper to continue to work face until a connection direct to the main return airway had been made."
On page 58 he said:
"Ventilation of 14's face was not adequate."
After the fall on the 24th May, that is four months before the explosion:
"The position was so precarious that drastic remedies were needed and should have been taken."
On page 63 he says those drastic remedies should have been the complete stopping of work on 14's face. The tragedy is that these gross neglects of the law as regards ventilation of that mine should only have been appreciated by the inspectorate two years after the tragedy has taken place. For that I can find in this Report no conceivable excuse, and in the face of disclosures such as that it is the duty of this House to see that ample funds are provided in order to make it certain in future that the inspectorate will be of such a calibre and of such a size that there can never again develop in a pit a state of affairs, unknown to the inspectorate, such as existed in the Gresford colliery.
This raises also the whole question of safety control in the mines, and on reading the Report one cannot fail to appreciate the fact that under the industrial circumstances of to-day reliance cannot be placed upon the management to look after the safety of the miners, nor upon the deputies, nor even upon the miners themselves. Let me refer to one or two passages on that point. A great many of them have already been read, and I would only state their effect. On pages 112 and 113 and on page 8 as well the position of the management is dealt with, and the chief inspector comes to the conclusion that:
"There must have been constraint put upon the manager by the owners, otherwise his conduct is absolutely inexplicable."
I think anybody who reads the Report must agree with that. As regards the under-manager, first of all there were not sufficient under-managers, or overmen, in the mine for there ever to be any management control during the night shift at all throughout the whole of the time at Gresford. Secondly, as is pointed out on page 113, the under-manager would obviously have been afraid to
1954
make any complaint over the head of the manager, and he would have been regarded, it is stated, as disloyal if he had done so. Disloyal to the owners; but what about the men who, as a result of that, are dead in the mine? It was pointed out that he was working 12½ hours a day. What sort of work of a responsible character can a man do day after day when he works 12½ hours, and even went back in the evening to the office and worked longer hours still? As regards deputies, it is quite clear from the evidence on pages 36 and 51 that the chief inspector considered their evidence unreliable, and anybody who listened to them must have come to the same conclusion. As regards the men, he points out on page 88 that they were quite clearly afraid because of victimisation. I can reinforce that opinion because of the extreme difficulty I had to persuade any of those men to come forward and give evidence. I had to go to them and pledge my personal word that if there was victimisation I would personally raise it in the House of Commons, and it was only on that pledge that I could get any of them to come forward and give evidence. Anybody who has realised that atmosphere knows perfectly well the power of the suggestion of victimisation, especially where you have a community as at Gresford, dependent entirely upon a single mine.
The position as regards shot firing in this mine demonstrates only too clearly the dangers that arise when deputies have their energies absorbed in production work as against safety work. The conclusion at which the Chief Inspector arrives, and with which I thoroughly agree, is that the deputies should never fire any shots at all. I believe that is the right conclusion, which ought to be put into force at once. It could be put into force at once, but, of course, it means the employment of extra men and more cost, and that is why the deputies in Gresford were firing up to 60 shots a shift, at the same time as being supposed to carry out their safety duties. Unless some method is devised by which independent persons can be responsible for the safety in the mines, I believe that you will never get over that great difficulty. There ought, in every mine, to be some independent judge of the safety position of that mine, and not responsible to the owner, whether the job be done

1955
by the inspectorate or by a special man on each shift in the mine responsible for safety and for nothing else. He should not be responsible to the owners, and perhaps not paid by them either. Whichever way it is done, something of that sort must be done if the safety regulations are to be properly carried out.
That is the first side of the problem—to make effective for the men's protection the regulations that already exist and the law that is already there. The second side of the problem is to adapt to modem methods of machine mining the regulations of the past which were intended for and were applicable to hand mining and nothing else. Three matters stand out from this Report as regards the necessary extension of safety. First there is the danger of shot firing to the extent which it took place in this mine, and must always take place where machine mining is carried on on this system. Secondly, there are the dangers arising from stone dusting, or the lack of stone dusting. Thirdly, there is the greatest problem of all, that of increasing the ventilation where there is this very rapid carrying forward of the face, seven yards a week, where you are getting enormous quantities of gas released from your rapid mining of the coal and where you are getting very bad packing, as the result of which there are large waste spaces behind which become veritable gasometers, as was stated at the inquiry. This is by far the most important matter. To get proper ventilation is the sovereign way of stopping explosions in mines.
It is essential that much more precise regulations than at present exist should be laid down as regards the airways in mines, and the volume of air on the face compared with the tonnage of coal that is being got from the face. In my view, it would be advisable to have some method of automatically detecting the presence of gas in the main bulk of air, as has been suggested. Many of the detectors being worked out now are in a sufficiently good state of perfection to allow of their universal operation.
As regards shot firing, the obvious cure is to stop the deputies from firing shots. That is the first thing, and the second, which I believe is well worth considering, is the suggestion which was made by my hon. Friend, that a period of time should
1956
be arranged in the working so that men could be cleared right out of the area where shots were being fired. As regards stone dusting, the position is obviously dangerous and unsatisfactory. A 50 per cent. figure is not a safe one, with regard to certain classes of coal. That has already been ascertained, and yet the figure still remains in the regulations and has to be complied with. It is quite true that it is not the maximum, but the minimum; yet it is in many cases clearly not safe, and not safe from two points of view. You may get a directly explosive gas, or you may get a condition of affairs that will carry an explosion which has occurred in some other way. That again is a matter with which the Minister could deal immediately, by altering the percentages in regard to the amount of dust which it is necessary to have.
I must say that, so far as I am concerned, I thought the Minister's statement was highly unsatisfactory. It did not seem to me to show in the least an appreciation of the gravity of this Report or of the urgency of the situation. Gresford has now been fully explored as regards the conditions which there existed. What I ask myself is: How many more mines are there in England like Gresford to-day? How many other 14's areas are there underground in this country where men are working and waiting day by day, as these men in Gresford waited, for the inevitable to happen? That is what the mining community of this country want to know, and it is what I hope this House will insist upon knowing, and the public as well. It is not satisfactory merely to say that we are going to wait for some Royal Commission to report. Certain matters have been fully disclosed, and they must be dealt with at once.
So far as the inspectorate is concerned, as I have already said, I do not desire to be vindictive against any individual, but if the behaviour of these inspectors as disclosed in the Report, is allowed to pass without even a reprimand from the Minister, indeed, almost with his approval, all I can say is that it is going to be an extremely serious matter as regards the morale of the Inspectorate of Mines in this country. If it is thought that they can get away with the inefficiency, the mistakes, indeed the neglect that was shown as regards Gresford, then certainly the public mind is not going to be satisfied that the inspectorate

1957
is providing that degree of regulation as regards safety which it is intended to provide, and for which it is paid. It is absolutely essential that it should be made clear beyond any possibility of doubt that, so far as the Mines Inspectorate is concerned, conditions such as are disclosed in this Report can never happen again, and I think the whole House will agree with me that we must insist upon that at least being the outcome of this Report and of this discussion. If these things can be allowed to pass with the sort of speech that the Minister has made here about them, we have no guarantee that a similar state of affairs is not going on in some other Dart of the country, that Mr. Dominy has not gone to some other district where fresh Gresfords will arise in the future, or that some other junior inspectors are not behaving in a similarly casual way.
This tragedy is a great tragedy for those who still are suffering from the loss of their menfolk, and it will be a tragedy which will bring no advantage to the rest of the mining community or to the rest of the community in this country, unless this House is prepared to learn the lessons of that tragedy and, having learned them, determines at all costs to see that in the future advantage is taken of them and that both by the inspectorate and by new regulations it is made impossible for others to suffer as those at Gresford suffered.
10.31 p.m.
Captain Crookshank: I can only speak again by leave of the House, but if the House will allow me to say a few words in reply to the very serious Debate that we have had, I shall be very much obliged. A certain number of questions have been asked and I will answer what I can in the time that is left. I am pleased that the Opposition put down a Motion and that we have not had this discussed merely on the Adjournment, in which case it would have been impossible within the Rules of Order to deal with possible legislation. Certainly the Debate has been fruitful of a great many suggestions. I think, however, that I can truthfully say that there is not a single point that has been made in that direction which has not already formed the subject of considerable evidence, written and oral, before the Royal Commission. If hon. Members had kept abreast, as I have done, with the evidence as it has
1958
been given, they would have found the answer to a great many difficulties which have presented themselves to-day. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down was preceded a little time before by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson). There must be few, if any, precedents for a Debate following an inquiry taking place in which speeches have been made by two of the principal legal luminaries engaged in the inquiry. The result is that I am obviously at some disadvantage as compared with the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), because he has been personally involved in this inquiry so very much longer than I have.
I do not want to deal seriatim with all the points that he made, but there is one where he is in error, and that is when he impugns the reliability of a report presented to the House about overtime. That report was about Lancashire and did not cover North Wales. It is true that inquiries were made about overtime at Gresford, as is mentioned on page 87 of the Report, but that was not in connection with the particular formal inquiry. While we are on that point, of course the hon. and learned Gentleman did not find out, as he might have done, that when Mr. Boydell, the senior inspector, saw the acting secretary of the union to try to get from him specific instances of overtime, these could not be produced. The Commissioner said in his report that it is very curious that if, in point of fact, it was the practice for men who had worked the morning or afternoon shift on Friday to work also the night shift on that day each week, such a practice was quite unknown to the miners' secretary, and this despite the fact that a specific request had been made for information. It is one of the points that the Chief Inspector made, which I referred to earlier on, that in some instances, in his opinion, there was some kind of tacit arrangement between the management and the workers. The point that I wanted to clear up is that North Wales and Gresford in particular was not covered by the Lancashire inquiry, about which a report was made to this House.
Among the various points that have emerged most vividly during the course of the Debate first of all there is the question, with which I have already dealt,

1959
of the suitability or otherwise of Sir Henry Walker being a Commissioner at this inquiry. I repeat that that was done after consultation with the Mineworkers' Federation of Great Britain. At one time it was not intended that he should be the Commissioner, but they were consulted, and, as the House was informed on 30th October, 1934, it was after consultation with and in accordance with their wishes that this appointment was made. I stress that fact, because while hon. Members are quite as sincere, no doubt, as Mr. Jones in saying it was a pity it happened, I want them to realise where a great deal of the responsibility for that appointment lies. In an investigation which was to concern the men in such a great calamity, it would be natural for anyone holding my position to consult with the Mineworkers Federation, and it was after that consultation that that appointment was made. For the future, as I said earlier on, each case must be considered as and when it—and we hope that it will not—should arise.
The only hon. Member, I think, who made any question about the subject of having a formal judicial inquiry was the hon. Member for Kingswinford (Mr. A. Henderson), who said he thought that there should be some judicial person in charge of any inquiry of any magnitude. However, he put his finger on an important point, and that is, that there are a great number of these inquiries, unfortunately, owing to accidents occurring in the course of years, and I do not know whether the standard which he had in view was a standard to be compared with the number of men killed or something of that kind. I do not know how many were meant, and he did not embroider it, but there might be some limitation.
There were some questions asked by the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Ritson) about the reopening of Gresford. He seemed to think that one of the reasons why this had not been done was that it was costly. As a matter of fact, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol and the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), who have been concerned in this affair all along, know, it has been a very anxious point for consideration as to whether it was at any time safe to open this colliery and to go into the area in which the
1960
catastrophe took place. Mr. Ivon Graham and Professor Jones who are two great authorities on the subject of heating, have been all along from time to time taking tests to see whether, in their opinion, it would be safe to enter, and that opinion has not yet been given. Desirable though no doubt it would be to find out, if one could at this late stage, after so much time has elapsed, the actual place, origin and cause, if one could determine it, of the explosion, it certainly would not in my opinion—I am quite convinced and satisfied about that—be right to endanger the life of anyone now by premature entry. Hon. Gentlemen referred to what had happened at Whitehaven. I have no doubt that it is within the recollection of many hon. Members that that was a pit which was opened prematurely, and that there was a terrible catastrophe as a result, in which 13 lives were lost, including the under-manager, the miners' agent, several deputies and two of His Majesty's inspectors. I do not, and I am sure that the House do not, want to have any recurrence of that kind.
Before I come to the more general question, I pass on to another matter which was raised, incidentally, by two hon. Members, my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ripon (Major Hills) and the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. G. Griffiths), and which was answered by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hitchin (Sir A. Wilson)—the question of the use of automatic firedamp detectors. This is a problem which my right hon. and gallant Friend has made his own for a very long time in this House. Other hon. Members have for a considerable time been asking questions whether it is possible to make the use of any existing detector compulsory. The answer is that when the Firedamp Detector Regulations were passed rather less than two years ago it was intended that there should be a period of something like two years of experiment in order to find out whether this or any other method of automatic detector was of use or sufficiently reliable. It is no use putting up an automatic arrangement unless you are quite certain that it will work in an emergency, or you are so near being quite certain that you can authorise its universal use. It was intended that somewhere towards the end of the two-year period the matter should be investigated in order that a decision might be taken.

1961
Those hon. Members who have followed the replies which I have given from time to time will know that I have not been entirely satisfied with the extent of the experiments made in the mining areas, and a small departmental and technical committee is sitting, under the chairmanship of one of my predecssors, Mr. Isaac Foot, in order to advise whether this particular detector is now sufficiently proved to be put into compulsory use, or alternatively, what other suggestions they have to make. It will probably be within the recollection of some hon. Members that the Mining Association not long ago offered a prize for any other automatic detector which might be produced and which could be used in the same sort of way. That is the position at the moment, and it is quite irrespective of the report of the Royal Commission. I told the Royal Commission when I set up the committee that this was a very important problem but only a small part of the problems they were covering, and that it might be useful to have it cleared up straight away, if we could do so.
Mr. G. Griffiths: It is a big problem.
Captain Crookshank: But it is not as big as the whole field of safety and health. I hope we may get an early report from that Committee, and then we shall be able better to judge the situation.
Mr. Griffiths: Has the Minister had a report from the colliery company which I quoted to-night?
Captain Crookshank: The next point—
Mr. Griffiths: Thanks for ignoring me.
Captain Crookshank: The next point was raised in two speeches, which cancelled each other out, by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) and the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor). The hon. Member for Ince suggested a course that might be adopted to get over the difficulty which many hon. Members feel about the possibility of victimisation, if a person, of whatever status in the industry, makes a report which is not agreeably received by the employer. He suggested that there might be some sort of appeal arrangement, whether affecting workmen, deputies or managers. The hon. Member for Morpeth pointed
1962
out that sometimes the alleged victimisation did not take place for weeeks, and possibly months. That is part of the difficulty which would be encountered in connection with any proposal of that kind. It would require legislation, and it is one of the matters which have been raised by various witnesses before the Royal Commission. Possibly they may find themselves able to advise on some form of machinery or give us some advice on the problem. The effectiveness of such machinery requires a great deal of study. If the alleged victimisation occurs five or six months after the event hon. Members will see how extremely difficult it would be to deal with a problem of that kind.
I should like to tell the hon. Member for East Leyton (Sir F. Mills) that whoever else did not read the speech he made in 1932 I have read it, and I read it with interest. It raised problems which were certainly startling as far as the practice of this country is concerned, and we are grateful to the hon. Member for having referred us to it again. Perhaps mining engineers and others will take the opportunity of reading the suggestions he made in that speech.
The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol said that he thought it would be a good thing for a proper enforcement of the law that in every pit there should be an independent person responsible for safety. That may be a very attractive theory, but it is not the theory held in the mining world. It is not the theory put forward by the Mineworkers' Federation, it is not the proposal of those to whom I normally look for advice and guidance in these problems. If the hon. and learned Member will look at the evidence given to the Royal Commission on 14th December he will see that Mr. Joseph Jones, in answering question No. 26,329, by the Chairman on the subject of government inspectors, said:
"We do not say that the powers of the inspectorate should be increased; on the contrary, we say that the manager should be in supreme control."
That is where the responsibility lies to-day. The responsibility lies to-day with the manager or the owners, so far as the manager does not accept responsibility, but the general fact now is that the manager is the person who is in supreme control, and that is what the

1963
President of the Mineworkers Federation of Great Britan wishes to see continued. He said:
"Our general line is that we want more inspectors solely for the purpose of ensuring a more adequate inspection, and not for the purpose of in any way impinging on the duties or authority of the manager."
He also went on to say that the inspectors are best able to know the varying standards of different pits, and that in his view:
"Every mine should be inspected throughout at least once a year."
I am sure the House will not want me to prejudge an issue which is before the Royal Commission. My Department gave evidence before the Royal Commission with regard to the inspectorate and workmen's inspectors. We pointed out the exact position. It is one of the pities of the North Wales position, and of Gresford in particular, that there was no system of workmen's inspectors in that pit. It is one of the things, I think, of the greatest possible value, and it is a thousand pities that it was not prevalent there. All these points are matters for large questions of organisation which, terrible though this tragedy is, and with all due respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, we should not hustle into adopting unthinkingly. It was for that purpose largely that the Royal Commission was set up.
There is one point I should stress again, and that is the point about making complaints. I should like to call the attention of the House to the sentence on page 89 of the Report, where the Commissioner says it
"appeared to come as a matter of surprise to many at the Inquiry."
to know that the inspectors pay attention not only to complaints made by trade unions or Members of Parliament or whoever else it may be, but also to those which are made unsigned. That has been a standing instruction for 35 years, and it is as clear as it could be in the instructions to the inspectors, because I have looked up the phrase to see if it could be strengthened. It has been made clear that any complaint from whatever source should be noted, and also that the greatest possible attention should be given that it should not come out in any way that a complaint has been made, still less by whom, but that the inspector should go and investigate in the course of his duties. If there are any further
1964
precautions that could be taken I would be glad to hear of them, because in spite of the fact that investigation is made when the complaints are anonymous, it is in my view very strange how few complaints inspectors actually get. I gave the figures for North Wales before, but I have them for the whole country over the last two years, and they are extraordinarily small.
That is a difficulty I find myself up against in this House. Hon. Members frequently put questions about some little trouble, it may be overtime in the area, or one or other of the various regulations, and I always ask for details, but it is not every time that I get them. Therefore, I repeat that the more the men in general realise that complaints are investigated from the point of view of trying to find if there is anything wrong, and also from the point of view of trying to safeguard the position of the person who makes the complaint, so much the better. The hon. Gentleman in his opening speech more or less implied that, because I caught the words that from top to bottom no one at Gresford had the courage or the character to protest. Those are hard words coming from him, but on the Report we must accept them as fact. The Debate, I hope, has made clear if people did not realise it before, what the situation is.
The hon. and learned Gentleman had a number of complaints to make about myself and my actions, but I think perhaps he omitted to realise that on behalf of the Government I have accepted this Motion, and that I have said we will do whatever we can to try and see
"that the industry is carried on under conditions of maximum safety."
I know that "maximum" is an adjective, and is therefore subject to interpretation, but nevertheless the general effect of the Motion is that we are all at one in wanting to do all we can as soon as possible—some things by regulation and some by legislation—to try to make the pits as reasonably safe—if I may use the word "reasonably" without offence—as they can be made.
An hon. Gentleman opposite has said that I am complacent, and I suppose he will say that even more when I have made my next remark, but I will make it all the same. The hon. Member opposite who once held my position knows as well as I do that there, is one day

1965
in the week which every Secretary for Mines dislikes, and that is the day on which there is put before him the accident record of the previous seven days. All of us have our good days and our bad days, days which we like and days which we do not like; but I am sure everyone who has held my position hates that day. The tragedy is that there are figures every week. Last week, as I was coming down to the House, I saw on the newspaper placards outside "Colliery Disaster" and I saw in the newspapers next day that there had taken place what was called the second colliery disaster this year. The tragedy is that that statement was not true. There is some sort of tragedy almost every day. Although it is not recorded in the London Press or put on the placards, it is reported in the local Press and is a tragedy in one or perhaps two households. The big catastrophes, when they come, shake the whole country, but the tragedy of day-to-day accidents is not so well realised.
May I put this to the House? Let us at least show some gratitude that, when all is said and done, the fatalities last year were the lowest of any normal year. We are making strides in bringing down the total of fatal accidents in this country. Last year the total was down to 777. The efforts which are being made by the inspectorate, by mining engineers and by scientists are gradually having some effect—[Interruption]—or if they are not having any effect, we are being a little more fortunate in 1936 than we were in previous years. But the net result is that fewer men lost their lives last year than in any other year.
Mr. Marklew: Fewer men were employed.
Captain Crookshank: The accident rate per 100,000 man-shifts worked was at a figure which, in its lowness, had only once been equalled before. As another test, the figure per 1,000,000 tons of minerals raised—although some hon. Members do not like that test—compared very favourably last year with the figure for the preceding year. Let us at least take heart out of catastrophes of this kind. Let us go on struggling to reduce by whatever means we can, whether by science, by law, or by administration, whether by employers or by workpeople, the accidents that take place. The task
1966
is not an easy one, but it is one in which we all want to press on. I hope and pray that in the coming years we may succeed more and more.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolved,
"That this House views with deep concern the conditions revealed by the inquiry into the Gresford Colliery explosion in which two hundred and sixty-five lives were lost, and is of opinion that grave responsibility rests upon the country and Parliament to prevent such disasters by adopting immediate and effective measures for ensuring that the industry is carried on under conditions of maximum safety."

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  HARBOURS, PIERS AND FERRIES (SCOTLAND) [REMISSION OF DEBT].
  Resolution reported,
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for the acquisition and construction by local authorities of harbours, piers, ferries and boatslips in Scotland, for the construction of new works connected therewith, and for the fixing and revision of dues thereat and at certain inland navigation undertakings, and for other purposes relating to the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the Secretary of State, by order, to make such provision as seems to him necessary with regard to any liabilities in respect of loans granted or deemed under the provisions of the aforesaid Act to have been granted to local or harbour authorities out of moneys provided by Parliament for the purposes of marine works the maintenance of which such authorities have resolved to discontinue under the provisions of the said Act."
  Resolution agreed to.

  PRIVILEGES.
  Ordered,
  "That Sir John Gilmour be added to the Committee of Privileges"—[Sir G. Penny.]
  The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

  PRIVILEGES.

    ADJOURNMENT.
    Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]
    Adjourned according at Two Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.

  SUGAR (DOMINIONS EXPORTS).
  SUGAR (DOMINIONS EXPORTS).
  OVERSEAS SETTLEMENT BOARD.
  OVERSEAS SETTLEMENT BOARD.
  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  THE CORONATION.
  THE CORONATION.
  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.
  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.
  HOURS OF WORK (BAKERS).
  HOURS OF WORK (BAKERS).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (LAND PURCHASE).
  ROYAL AIR FORCE (LAND PURCHASE).
TRADE AND COMMERCE.
  ARGENTINE TRADE AGREEMENT.
  ARGENTINE TRADE AGREEMENT.
  RAW MATERIALS (IMPORTS).
  RAW MATERIALS (IMPORTS).
  EGGS (IMPORTS).
  EGGS (IMPORTS).
  EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (FILMS).
  EMPIRE MARKETING BOARD (FILMS).
  WELSH CHURCH (TEMPORALITIES) ACT.
  WELSH CHURCH (TEMPORALITIES) ACT.
  AFFORESTATION.
  AFFORESTATION.
  ROYAL NAVY (VEHICLES AND PETROL).
  ROYAL NAVY (VEHICLES AND PETROL).
  IMPERIAL DEFENCE.
  IMPERIAL DEFENCE.
BRITISH ARMY.
  SHRIVENHAM ESTABLISHMENT.
  SHRIVENHAM ESTABLISHMENT.
  SOLDIER'S DISCHARGE (F. J. BINNS, STRATFORD).
  SOLDIER'S DISCHARGE (F. J. BINNS, STRATFORD).
  AGRICULTURE (MILK FOR FACTORY WORKERS).
  AGRICULTURE (MILK FOR FACTORY WORKERS).
  IMPORT DUTIES REVENUE.
  IMPORT DUTIES REVENUE.
  SILVER COINAGE.
  SILVER COINAGE.
  CIVIL SERVICE (STAFFS).
  CIVIL SERVICE (STAFFS).
Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
BANBURY WATERWORKS BILL. [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (BEDFORD) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WALTHAM JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (EALING EXTENSION) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (EAST HERT-FORDSHIRE JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (COLWYN BAY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SOMERSET AND WILTS) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (WISBECH JOINT ISOLATION HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.
NEWCASTLE - UPON - TYNE CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (ESHER URBAN DISTRICT ORDER).
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name with regard to the Esher Urban District Order.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Act and laid before the House on the 27th of January last, be approved.—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932 (HASLEMERE URBAN DISTRICT ORDER).
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion relating to the Haslemere Urban District Order.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State under the Act and laid before the House on the 27th of January last, be approved.—(The Marquess of Dufferin and Ava.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GREENOCK BURGH EXTENSION, ETC., ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES (REGULATION) (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL): My Lords, I think it will be necessary for me, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, to explain to your Lordships the circumstances in which it has been introduced into your Lordships' House. In England and Wales the wages and conditions of service of farm workers are regulated by the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924. It is proposed by the Bill now in your Lordships' hands to introduce into Scotland a similar system of wage regulation. Your Lordships will, of course, notice that it is proposed to make this change in Scotland some thirteen years after the passing of the English Act. In order to explain why that is so, I think it is desirable that I should outline briefly what has occurred in connection with the regulation of agricultural wages in Scotland during and since the War.
My starting point is the Corn Production Act of 1917, which dealt, incidentally to its main purpose of the encouragement of cereal production, with the regulation of agricultural wages. It set up separate machinery for England and Wales, for Ireland, and for Scotland. I think it may be useful to your Lordships' consideration of the present proposal if I describe shortly the provisions of the 1917 Act which related to Scotland. The Second Schedule to the Act provided for the division of Scotland into a number of districts (leaving the exact number to be determined by the then Board of Agriculture for Scotland) and for the establishment of a wages committee in each district. These committees were representative joint committees comprising a chairman and equal numbers of representatives of employers of agricultural labour on the one hand and of workers employed in agriculture on the other. The number of districts subsequently determined on by the Board of Agriculture for Scotland was twelve, and accordingly twelve district committees were set up. The function of these committees was the fixing of minimum rates of wages for time work. Following the provisions in the Schedule, there was also a Central Agricultural Wages Committee.
232
This body was selected on a representative basis. Its duty was to act for any district wages committees which failed for any reason to fix minimum rates of wages for time work within its district. The Central Committee might disallow the rates fixed by a district committee.
Now the operation of this arrangement was brought to an end by the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Act of 1921, and for the next few years there was no compulsory regulation of agricultural wages in Great Britain. Section 4 (1) of the repeal Act, however, gave the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries as regards England and Wales, and the Board of Agriculture as regards Scotland, power to take such steps as they might think best calculated to secure the voluntary formation and continuance of local joint conciliation committees. So far as Scotland was concerned, both employers and employed at the time made it plain to the Board that they preferred that the fixing of wages should be left to the industry itself. This view still prevailed in 1924, when the principle of statutory regulation was again applied in England and Wales on the passing into law of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, and Scotland was excluded from the scope of that Act.
It would not be exaggerating to say that the idea of statutory regulation has until very recently been distasteful in Scotland, and for a very natural reason. Generally speaking, engagements in Scotland are made on a yearly or half-yearly basis. The traditional method of recruitment has been by personal arrangement between masters and men at the half-yearly hiring or feeing markets. The wages agreed upon at such meetings between employers and prospective employees have always been regarded as a matter for themselves alone, but naturally of course the terms of such private bargains were guided by local practice. In some districts, although the practice is less common than it was, a further guide is afforded by the recommendations of a joint committee of employers and employed meeting every six months to discuss and recommend rates for the ensuing term. There is no compulsion on farmers to adopt the rates as recommended. In normal times the system of private bargaining seems to have worked well enough. But by "normal times" I mean periods like that from 1926 to

233
1929, when prices for agricultural produce were stable and reasonably satisfactory, and when there was a reasonable balance between the supply of, and the demand for, agricultural labour. In those circumstances the wages paid, although tending to drop to some extent, were, on the whole, not unsatisfactory to the workers.
Of the period of live years or so from 1930, a period covering one of the worst slumps in the history of agriculture, there is a different tale to tell. In that period minimum rates of wages in England and Wales fell slightly, but rose again, and by 1936 had regained the loss and were, if anything, rather higher than in 1930. But in Scotland, where there was no wage regulation, there was a reduction of cash wages over the same period of the order of 10 per cent. This considerable reduction in average or standard rate is not in itself a complete picture. The statistics of average wages collected by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland do not claim to show more than standard or typical rates. It has been strongly represented by the workers' representatives—namely, the Scottish Farm Servants' section of the Transport and General Workers' Union, that in individual cases rates of wages considerably lower than the standard or usual rates in the district have been paid. It has not been suggested that, in general, the Scottish farmer has paid less to his employees than the rates recognised in his district, but that cases of such serious underpayment, even if relatively few, can occur is sufficient to show the weak point in the present method of wage fixing.
In 1934 and 1935 an effort was made to secure the adoption on a voluntary basis of a scheme for establishing collective bargaining and conciliation machinery throughout Scotland. It was fully realised that the findings of voluntary committees could only be recommendations, but it was thought that if there was general agreement to set up such machinery all over Scotland and to abide by its findings, the object sought might in practice be achieved without resort to compulsion. Meetings were held between representatives of the Farm Servants' Union and the National Farmers' Union of Scotland, and with the assistance of the Department of Agriculture for Scotland a scheme was prepared. This scheme was accepted by the
234
central executives of the parties concerned, but it failed to commend itself to a majority of the branches of the National Farmers' Union of Scotland. At this point the Farm Servants' Union represented to the late Secretary of State for Scotland that it was useless, in view of the attitude of most of the branches of the National Farmers' Union, to proceed further with any voluntary scheme, and that therefore machinery should be set up to effect compulsory regulation of wages.
This request represented a change of view on the part of organised agricultural labour in Scotland, and the late Sir Godfrey Collins therefore, in January of last year, set up a Departmental Committee of Inquiry under the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, with the following terms of reference:
"To examine the existing system of employment and remuneration of farm servants in Scotland; to inquire what changes have taken place in recent years; and to report whether in their view it is desirable to take any action, and if so what action, for regulating the remuneration or the conditions of employment of these workers."
This Committee was of an independent character, but it included among its members two farmers and two other gentlemen with wide experience of labour questions. The Committee carried out a most careful inquiry and last June presented a comprehensive and valuable Report. They came to the unanimous conclusion that statutory regulation of wages should be extended to Scotland. The Government have carefully considered the terms of that Report and, as the present proposals show, they agree with the Committee's main recommendation.
Your Lordships will observe that the Bill follows closely the terms of the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924, by the division of Scotland into districts following the precedent of the 1917 Act and the Committee's recommendations. The English Act, while providing in general for separate county committees, included in the Schedule a combination of counties for which committees were to be set up after the first establishment of committees. Power was also taken to effect the further amalgamations proposed. The division of Scotland into districts, comprising in some cases several counties, is therefore broadly in line with the present facts in England and Wales. The committees, which will include equal

235
representation of workers and employers and will, if possible, select their own chairmen, will be authorised to fix minimum rates of wages for their districts: An Agricultural Wages Board, mainly composed of representative members but including three independent members appointed by the Department of Agriculture for Scotland, will act in the event of a district committee failing for any reason to do so, and will in certain circumstances exercise advisory functions.
In framing their proposals the Government have adhered as closely as possible to the recommendations of the Caithness Committee. Where they have departed from these recommendations they have been moved to do so solely by the consideration that it is obviously desirable on general grounds that the system of wage regulation in Scotland should, as nearly as possible, follow the system which has worked very well in England during the past twelve years. There will, of course, be opportunities in Committee for the details of this scheme to be thoroughly considered and examined, and I shall content myself now with referring to a general consideration which, in the Government's view, provides a very good reason for instituting wage regulation in Scotland at the present time. The period 1924–29 was a period of reasonable balance between supply and demand in regard to labour; but during the slump period which followed there was in agriculture, in common with other industries, although not to the same extent, a certain amount of unemployment. We are now emerging from the depression, and it seems not unlikely that between the demands of industry and of agriculture there may well be in the next few years a shortage of agricultural labour. There are indications, of which some noble Lords in their own experience will be well aware, that that shortage is already apparent and that there is a strong tendency for farm workers to migrate to the better-paid jobs in the towns. This tendency is all the more unfortunate since it is very often the best of the farm workers who leave their employment on the farms. A supply of good labour is an essential condition to the development and future prosperity of agriculture, and it seems to me that every reasonable step should be taken to add to the effectiveness of farm employment.
236
The Unemployment Insurance (Agriculture) Act of last year will no doubt help, by bringing the agricultural worker within the scope of the benefits of unemployment insurance, and the proposals now before your Lordships will have the effect of fixing appropriate minimum rates of wages in each district. They will ensure that the agricultural worker of each district will know just where he stands in the matter of wages. The Government are assured that this knowledge and feeling of stability will materially assist in dealing with the vital problem to Scottish agriculture of keeping the worker on the land. I am sorry to find that some noble Lords have felt it necessary to express a disinclination towards this measure in the form of a Motion for its rejection, as I had hoped that your Lordships would prefer to recognise the justice of the principle underlying this Bill, and give it a Second Reading, then undertaking, as we are prepared to undertake, a close and thorough examination of it in Committee. This Bill seeks to ensure that the farm worker receives his due share of the assistance which the Government have given and are giving to the industry as a whole, and on this ground an on its general merits I trust your Lordships will agree to give it a Second Reading. I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN had given Notice that on the Motion for the Second Reading he would move, That the Bill be read 2a this day six months. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Stair, has put me in to but first and break the bowling, and I will try my best to do so. I speak for Aberdeenshire and Aberdeenshire contains one-fifth of the arable land in Scotland. It should, therefore, carry more weight in a Scottish debate than Lancashire and Yorkshire together in a similar debate on England. The subject of our debate is one that I have studied for more than thirty years, since the year 1904 or even earlier. There are many noble Lords in this House who know a great deal more about Scotland than I do, but I think few have given more continuous and earnest study to the subject of this debate. My personal interest in agricultural land is now very small; in fact during the

237
worry and trouble that have come to me I have tried to take comfort to myself by saying that after all it does not matter a doit to me personally. My attitude to this Bill is dictated entirely by my consideration for, and my understanding of, the Scottish farm servant, and in particular the Aberdeenshire farm servant.
Inexperienced as I am in addressing your Lordships, I feel none the less that I ought to make some comment upon the manner in which this Bill has been introduced. In the first place it is founded upon a Report which is very much open to criticism. The Report condemns out of hand customs, such as the long-term hiring system, which we, who have studied the farm servant and are champions of the farm servant, have been accustomed to look upon as the most favourable circumstances of his life. It condemns them practically without discussion and, apparently, without knowledge of all there is to be said in favour of those customs. Even if it were the best Report in the world I should still wonder whether the procedure in the Bill itself had not been planned to take advantage of special features of your Lordships' House.
In the first place we have been told that it is a great honour that the Government should introduce a Bill of first-class importance here, and that it would be a great mistake for us to reject this Bill, it being the first of its kind to be introduced here. Well, at the bottom, that argument is what Professor Gilbert Murray would call an inorganic argument, by which I mean that it can be applied to any Bill at any time. I would not for a moment suggest that your Lordships should not give that argument any weight it may deserve, but I have been told—I was not of course a member of this House then—that in the time of the predecessors of the present Government, in the time of the Labour Government, they never scrupled to bring in measures of first-class importance and introduce them to Parliament for the first time in your Lordships' House. The members of that Party are, I think rightly, regarded as being subversive but, in view of the stable Constitution under which we live, I think we ought to give them this praise, that while they were resorting to this method they worked it fairly.
There is another point. Your Lordships know that Scottish Peers are three times poorer on the average than those in this country, and that they live three times as far away from Westminster. I think it is a mistake to introduce Scottish Bills before Easter. There is no hurry for this Bill. If it were passed to-morrow it could not become effective for over a year. The Whitsuntide hiring date is in May, but the bargains are made in March and April, and if this Bill were law tomorrow it would be completely ineffective until next year. Again, as has very often been complained in this House, the date of the debate has been changed, with the result that Peers who came here for it last week were disappointed. Certain Peers who made great efforts to stay in London last week have had to leave and are unable to be in their places to-day. That applies to my noble friend the Marquess of Aberdeen, who is very interested in this matter. He has been forced to return to the County of which he is Lord Lieutenant on business and is, therefore, unable to be present this week.
But there is a further important matter which I feel it my duty to lay before your Lordships. It is a personal one, but I can assure you that I do not present it in any personal spirit or with any personal feeling. The Report on the farm servants in Scotland is so extraordinary that I went to the Printed Paper Office and asked to have the evidence, and I was told that it had not been printed. I therefore wrote to the Secretary for Scotland and asked that, as the evidence must have been duplicated for the use of the Committee, I might be allowed to see it. The Minister replied that this was impossible as the evidence was confidential. Now there is nothing in the terms of reference to make the evidence confidential, and there can be no possible reason why I should not be allowed to see it. Whatever my occupation all my life I have all the time been forced into close relations with farm servants. I have a theory which is common to many of those who have had to manage land, that it is one of the most important points in the policy of land management to foster the farm servants. Again, I have worked with a firm of accountants who managed landed estates in Scotland, and, further, as a very poor man with insufficient capital, I have occupied a farm and

239
worked my own fields in intimate companionship with my men. I base my complaint now not upon those favourable qualifications for judging the matter, but merely upon the fact that I am a member of your Lordships' House trying to do my duty in the task set before me, and I say that I ought to have been allowed to be supplied with the information necessary to enable me to discharge that duty.
Moreover, I submit that it is a bad principle of government that a Committee should be allowed to make an investigation and report, as this one has done, on almost every point directly against the evidence submitted, certainly against the evidence on many points of grave importance, and then be allowed to refuse to Parliament the right to inspect the evidence which they have seen fit so thoroughly to disregard. There can be no question here of victimisation of witnesses. It is not easy to victimise men of proud and independent temper secure in a yearly contract, and even if the refusal is because of a distrust of my discretion it is a simple matter to expunge the names of witnesses. I have not had much experience of Parliamentary practice, but I have always understood that when reference was made either in debate or in a Report laid before Parliament to any document both Houses of Parliament were entitled to have that document placed before them. Perhaps my noble friend in charge of the Bill will have some inquiries made into this matter.
The withholding of the evidence is all the more serious owing to the inconclusive nature of much of it as disclosed by the Report itself. In paragraph 6, for instance, dealing with the number of workers employed, the Committee say they have "great difficulty in reconciling the two sets of statistics" and they say that "little reliance can be placed upon the changes shown under the various classifications of the census returns." In paragraph 14, dealing with casual labour, we are told that the departmental figures "cannot be accepted as a true index." Again, in paragraph 75, the Committee state that "it is difficult to obtain accurate information regarding current rates," and in paragraph 5 they say that the "inquiry has been an intricate one." Yet in spite of
240
all this the Committee only held ten meetings. One of those was a preliminary meeting, so that there were only nine effective meetings. Moreover, they only examined twenty-two witnesses for all the districts of Scotland, some of which differ from each other as much as England differs from Germany agriculturally speaking. It cannot have been possible to obtain the facts in many cases. Indeed, with regard to long-term engagements, the Committee appear to have preferred their own personal opinion to the evidence laid before them.
Besides the inconclusive nature of the evidence, the Report is no more satisfactory in respect of the sources from which that evidence was derived. Evidence was taken from representatives of the Farmers' Union, but the membership of the Farmers' Union only covers about 25 per cent. of the farmers. The Committee very wisely took evidence from independent farmers outside the Union. On the other hand, the strenuous efforts of nearly twenty years have failed to secure a membership of more than 15 per cent. for the Farm Servants' Union. I know very well that this body does not commend itself to the Scottish farm servants in my part of the country, for reasons which will presently appear. Yet the Report states that the Committee accepted the evidence of the Union as adequately representing the point of view of farm workers throughout Scotland, and the Committee expressed the hope that the result of their efforts might be to attract farm servants into the Union. The object of the Bill is the political exploitation of the farm servants. I myself represent the view of the farm servants who have not been consulted, and many of them resent this kind of driving. Only three days ago I received a letter from a farm servant in central Aberdeenshire. It is quite a spontaneous, unsolicited expression of opinion. He writes:
"I see you are going to speak against the Farm Servants' Wages Bill. I do not think much of it, or the Unemployment Bill either."
Well, that is a letter from a very shrewd man, and he very rightly couples this Bill with the Unemployment Insurance Bill.
I have been told that noble Lords who reside on the Border approve this Bill. It is very good for them, and they want to see it carried. I frankly admit that.

241
I have been told that all parties want to see this Bill carried for the Border counties. I have visited the Border counties, and I have many warm friends there whom I hope I shall not lose by what I am going to say now. I have an immense admiration for the enormous, perfectly clean fields, beautifully farmed in the Border counties. We have nothing better in Aberdeenshire. We can equal it, but we cannot beat it. But somehow or other when I visited that neighbourhood I felt an unaccountable sense of depression. I love that country now, but at the time I could not account for my feeling. After a bit I realised what it was. I was saying to myself: "What place is there in this country for the poor man?" In the part of the country I come from there are holdings of every size, and men of every kind of fortune can own land. That is what the true farm servant wants to do. He wants to get the occupation of land, and that, as far as I can see—I stand subject to correction—is the great difficulty in the southern counties of Scotland by reason of the enormous size of most of the holdings. I do not want noble Lords on the other side of the House to take it that I am making a charge against the great body of landowners. The landowners have no blame in the matter. It is a frightfully difficult thing to alter the system of agriculture in any district within the lifetime of one man, or within two generations, and I know that efforts are being made to help that state of affairs.
I can quite understand that this Bill will be welcomed in these Border counties. One reason is that the agricultural industry there finds that people are drifting away from it and those concerned in the industry want to get them back. For that reason they want the Unemployment Insurance Bill and the Bill which is before your Lordships to-day. But see how it will work. You have an Unemployment Insurance Bill, and that means that you are bound to have a class of unemployed. I am perfectly ready to admit that the Bill before your Lordships will probably have the effect of raising the lower rates of wages paid, but that will be accompanied by the fact that some of the lower grade men will not be employed. You always have a certain number of third horsemen—horseman is our word in Scotland for
242
Ploughman—who may become second horsemen. As you have unemployed third horsemen who can be employed as second horsemen there will be a surplus of labour amongst the second horsemen. That will displace a certain number of second horsemen, and you will have the same thing among the first horsemen. The point I am making now is that by means of this Bill and by means of the Unemployment Insurance Bill you will create a surplus of labour in the industry. No system you set up can be impervious to economic facts. The Soviet Government of Russia itself is not proof against economic facts. One undoubted economic fact is that if you have a surplus of labour over the demand for labour wages go down. The effect of this Bill will be to raise slightly the wages of the lower paid men, but to create a certain amount of unemployment and therefore to pull down the wages of the higher paid men.
It was with this thought in my mind that I wrote to Lord Clinton, who, as your Lordships know, has been unwell. I wrote to him in the South of France where he is hoping to re-establish his health and begged his counsel and help in regard to the Bill. He replied to me, and I asked if I might be allowed to quote his letter. He sent me the following, dated February 18:
"My dear Saltoun,
Farm Servants.
"I have telegraphed to you. My remarks may be quoted, but if possible wait for letter. I have always felt that the Scottish farm servant was very well able to look after himself in the way of wages, and that was for a long time the view of the leaders of the union. We have seen the standard of wages in Scotland found by negotiation between farmer and man kept well above the English standard. The Wages Act of England has not, I think, been the main cause in the increase of the wages there; that increase would have come in any case; but it has had, I think, three main results—(a) unemployment of older men; (b) increasing wages of unskilled men, and keeping down the wages of better skilled men. I fear the measure will largely induce farmers to increase machinery at the expense of manual labour. I am glad you have got the matter in hand. …"
There is no man in Parliament whose wisdom and experience I would sooner rely upon in a matter of this kind than Lord Clinton. I am sure your Lordships will agree with that, and whatever happens to this Bill to-night and however few of your Lordships there are to support me, I will still be content to be on his side.
At the same time is this not precisely the difficulty which the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, so often deplored in your Lordships' House—the raising of the lower grade wages and the depressing of the higher grade wages, leading to the development of less skill in industry, so that, as he says, anyone who starts an aeroplane factory is injuring the country because it is drawing skilled men away from places where they are more required? Because we do not produce nearly enough skilled men for our most elementary needs. That is what appears to me is happening in this measure. I am perfectly certain that in Aberdeenshire one of the effects of this will be to lower the total wage bill paid by the farmer. In paragraph 44 the Report says that the decline of the rural population is due to the desertion by the wage earner of his occupation in agriculture. As a matter of fact the accusation is ill-founded. Under the English Agricultural Wages Act the decline has been proportionately far greater than in Scotland. If your Lordships want figures I have them here. The general decline in the rural population in Scotland is entirely due to the ruin of rural industries and factories all over the County of Aberdeen, many of which I remember in active and prosperous days. But if men are said to be deserting their employment in agriculture, as the Report states, how can there be unemployment? It seems to me the two suggestions are inconsistent. As a matter of fact, the fact of unemployment appears very doubtful to me. The figure given for Scotland is 5·7 per cent., but your Lordships must remember that any man who has ever done even a day's work upon a field always calls himself a farm servant because he thinks it is a much more dignified employment. That must go a very long way to swell the figure given in the Report.
In paragraph 47 of the Report agriculture is called a "blind-alley occupation" and in paragraph 49 it is said that "under the tied-house system it is not possible for the farm worker to achieve any real independence." The facts are that under the present tied-house system it is possible, and has been possible, over two generations, for a competent farm servant to save enough to take a small farm. The period varies, partly according to the man, and partly according to the prosperity of the agriculture in the
244
county at the time he starts his work. When I started estate management, from one-quarter to one-sixth of the farm servants in the countryside rose in this way. Only a week ago I visited my home and I heard that a man whom I have long known in different situations has lately taken a farm on his savings. About one-half of the farmers in Aberdeenshire were originally farm servants. That is the proportion generally quoted in the County and it is borne out by investigations of my own, undertaken for this purpose. One-half of the tenants on my father's estate were originally farm servants. I have not confined myself, however, to this solitary instance and have obtained information from different parts of the County. Not long ago I saw a letter from a farm servant in the Aberdeen Journal complaining that the practice of multiple farms prevented farm servants from getting farms themselves. Not a word about lack of means; only about lack of opportunity. It may interest your Lordships to know that the lowest figure I got was in Banffshire—40 per cent.—and the lowest figure in Aberdeenshire was 45 per cent. I got my figures from all over the County. The same condition of things obtains in Perthshire and other parts of Scotland.
We are told that we must have this Bill in Scotland because they have it in England. When you can show me a county in England where one-half of the farmers commenced without capital between the stilts of a plough I will begin to consider the force of that argument. The commonest form of persuasion used to induce farm servants to join the union is that they have made a mistake in trying to become farmers and that they would be much better off as farm servants. In Aberdeenshire I doubt if 5 per cent. of the farm servants are members of the union. They know that their wages are low when they are learning their trade. There is a point there about wage regulation. I do not know any county where there are more frequent ploughing contests and other contests of farm servants and every servant knows every other man's work. It is quite possible that no two farm servants in Aberdeenshire were estimated at the same amount, simply because every man is engaged on his personal character. I am sure that the men themselves do not wish the lower-grade wages to be raised at the

245
expense of the higher-grade wages in the business, because it is the higher-grade wages on which they depend for their advancement. They are very proud of their bargaining power, and I do not think they really wish to join the union. Yet, as I have pointed out to your Lordships, the Government have confined their opinion on this subject to evidence in support of the Bill from the representatives of a union which is hostile to the rise of the ploughman, a Bill which is bound—and the Committee half confess it—to lower the wages of an ambitious man. All the farmers who have risen from the plough have risen under this tied-house system which the Committee so condemn. It is possible that the Committee do not consider the farmer independent. Perhaps the only independence is that of the man on strike or on the "dole."
But your Lordships must remember that it is not only as farmers that farm servants rise in the world. One of the greatest of our all-round scientists started life as a farm servant in Aberdeenshire. One of our greatest poets started life in the same way, and there is a legend, which I believe is untrue, that they were feed—"feed" is our Scottish word for hired—together on the same farm. One of the greatest British surgeons is the grandson of a farm servant. None of these men could have got his start in life unless the wages of a farm servant had been sufficient to give him the start he required. I do not want to see wages down; but the point I have to make to your Lordships is that there is not a single word about this process of rising from the plough in the Report which is laid before your Lordships. I cannot understand how any inquiry into the wages of farm servants could take place without disclosing this vital fact. No one can say that in an inquiry into life and wages the fact that half the masters in the county were originally men could be irrelevant. Nobody can say that it is irrelevant that a competent man can save enough of his wages to lease and stock a farm in ten to twenty years.
The Government have introduced this Bill and have prefaced it by laying before your Lordships a Report which purports to give all the relevant material on which your Lordships should decide this issue. In practice there is hardly a single conclusion in the Report which does not have
246
to be qualified in the light of the facts which I have just laid before you. It is, of course, for your Lordships to decide what to do, but it appears to me that here is a very strong case for putting the whole thing back and getting a proper inquiry made, because that fact qualifies every single conclusion that is embodied in the Report.
I will just turn for a moment to the Bill. I do not consider this a good Bill; I think it is altogether too much in the air. In the first place, Scotland is to be divided into districts at the discretion of the Department. Why are these districts not specified? I have myself suggested the existing shrievalties, but I understand that plan is open to objection. Whatever system is adopted should, however, be part of the Bill. Your Lordships are better qualified to say how these districts should be divided than any other body in the whole country, because your Lordships know the people and the country where you live; you know their history; you know how they are divided from their neighbours, and how they are divided by custom and by blood. Again, the method of nomination or election of the local committees is left to the Department. Why should this method be omitted from the Bill? In this House we have a definite interest in seeing that these local committees work well and harmoniously. If they do not, then of course the matter is referred to the Board, and that will inevitably put more power into the hands of the Department and its officials. I am sure they would do their best, but it seems to me on every ground that the method of nomination and election should be stated.
There is another reason. In Appendix IX of the Report there is given a scheme which has been tried before and has failed. Now, suppose I criticise this scheme; my noble friend, when he replies, will be able to say, and say very truly, that it is not included in the Bill. Suppose, however, I leave it and you pass this Bill, it is then in the power of the Department to adopt all those details of the scheme in Appendix IX which are not inconsistent with the Bill itself and to say that it has been laid before Parliament. One of the points of that scheme in Appendix IX is that the nomination of the local committees in every district is left in the hands of the

247
union. That is going to prove very hard in Aberdeenshire, where very few people are members of the union: it means that our members will probably be nominated from somewhere in the south.
I should like now to turn to the question of long-term hiring, to which the noble Lord who introduced the Bill referred. It is condemned by the Committee, apparently against the weight of the evidence which was before them. It is closely connected with the housing question, to which I have already referred. As far as the interests of agriculture are concerned, long-term hiring is obviously an advantage because of the interest it engenders in the men in the farm and in all the details of the farming. When I was a farmer I used to hear my fellow farmers complain about it because it gave too much advantage to the men. I think they were short-sighted. Of course, I know perfectly well that the monthly engagements which the Committee recommend do not necessarily mean short engagements, any more than long-term engagements mean short engagements. The point is this. In Scotland there are two removal terms: Martinmas and Whit-Sunday. They are universal, and of these two terms Whitsun is by far the more important, and practically every change of house takes place at Whit-Sunday. The Committee say nothing about the position of a married man on a monthly engagement whose engagement ends, not on Whit-Sunday but at a time when there is no house and no other place ready for him. Under the long-term-hiring system a man knows that at the end of his time, when his engagement ends, there are certain to be, if he wishes to change, other houses and other places open to him. Under the monthly system he can never be sure that he will have a place or a house to go to when his engagement ends. If your Lordships consider, you will see that this point is independent to a great extent of the tied-house question. The Committee, however, do not appear to have considered it at all; they give no indication that they have thought of the matter.
There is another point about long-term hiring which the Committee have not mentioned and which I consider important. Under the long-term-hiring system practically the whole of our work
248
on the farms is carried out by permanent labour. In fact one of the main points is that most farmers keep a man too many, because they say "I aye like to have plenty of force." If you have monthly engagements, as the Committee suggest, it is perfectly certain that one of the results will be—and it will be one of the results of this Bill—to turn Scotland over from permanent to casual agricultural labour. I call it casual agricultural labour where a man is laid off for a fortnight or a month in a year while his master economises his wages. The attitude of the Committee to hours of work is extremely curious to anyone who has ever run a farm. They seem to think that it is the main object of the men to avoid their work. I have found them as keen on it as I was myself, or even keener. I was the first man in my own district who worked on Sunday. Why? Because the men came to me and said they could not bear to see a fine day lost; and when you think of the amount of time lost in Scotland, especially in the north, owing to short days, winter storms and bad weather in the winter, it is a very fortunate thing for us that our men are so keen. It is the one thing that enables us to compete with our fellow farmers in the south. Only the other day in going north I saw a headline in a newspaper, "Ploughs rust in furrows for a month." Exactly. There had then been no work done around me for over a month. That is one reason why I deprecate introducing hours of labour into the question, when the men are just as keen on the work as their masters.
Sitting beside my cattleman at midnight in an empty stall waiting for a cow to calve, neither of us looked upon the time as "overtime." As a matter of fact you cannot keep a good cattleman out of the byre. A good cattleman, after his tea, is always slipping back to the byre to see how the beasts are resting. How can you turn that into cash and overtime? And do you think it is going to improve the relations between master and man to do it? In paragraph 79, the Report remarks that it is common enough to find a difference of 5s. a week between the wages of men doing exactly the same work upon different farms. I will go further than that and say that you will find a difference of 5s. a week between men doing exactly the same work on the

249
same farm. The first and second horsemen do exactly the same work, but the greater skill or seniority of the first horseman gets a bigger reward. And even between the first horsemen in different places there is very often a difference, and always will be a difference, in a country where every man is known by the quality of his work, and in a country which depends on the individual work of a man, and not upon machinery.
But the Committee pass the bounds of reason in the same paragraph when they suggest that farmers delay hiring their men until after the feeing markets in order to keep down wages. Only a fool could contemplate such an action; that is precisely the way to get the worst men in the market on to your farm. I know exactly how a farmer would look at a thing like that, and I think that the Committee must have been very credulous to believe so malicious a statement. I know that wages are not as high as I should like to see them; they are not as high as I used to pay, but they are improving. And, as a matter of fact, I have only just heard from home that the rates quoted in that district are £5 higher than they were. The rates quoted in the Report are quite illusory. All over the County of Aberdeen there are farmers who have retained their staffs since the good times, and that at the same or very slightly lower rates. The farmer next to me has had the same staff for I do not know how many years, and so have many others. The rates that you see in the papers, and which are to be found in the Report are therefore quite illusory. They are not the average rates at all. I have already pointed out many matters where this Committee have seen fit to report apparently against the weight of the evidence, but page 32 of the Report must be a record. It contains four paragraphs, in each of which the evidence is set aside as the Committee "do not attach weight to it." I may say that a very large number of the conclusions of the Report are against my own personal experience and require very serious qualification.
The object of the Bill—the Committee are quite frank about it—is that the farm servants should join the Farm Servants' Union. I should not have the smallest objection to that if the union would help the natural line of development, but the union sets its face against that and I
250
think it is a great mistake of the Government to bring in a Bill which is frankly designed to force the farm servants to join the union. Moreover, this purpose probably accounts for the Committee's reference to what they term the curiously intimate relationship between master and man. It looks almost as if they wished them to be at odds, and to set them at odds. They go half-way to it in wishing that "employer and worker would more clearly realise their exact position." That is in paragraph 70. We all know what defining rights generally leads to; for instance, in the Chaco in South America.
There is only one further matter I would touch upon and I think it is a serious one. There is in Scotland a small and unimportant body. It is a little cloud no bigger than a man's hand, and yet I think it is fraught with great danger to this country and to the Empire. I mean the Home Rule Party. I have said it is a small body, but if it should grow up into a large or a clamorous party do your Lordships really think that, as things are to-day, you would be able to refuse Scottish Home Rule? If we get Bills from Westminster which take no account of local feeling, no account of local conditions, which say that because a thing is law in England therefore it must be the law in Scotland, people in the North will say: "If that is the best consideration we can get from Westminster, how shall we be worse off if we have Home Rule?" People are saying it already. I have in my pocket a cutting from a local paper of a rather heated speech by an ex-farm servant on this very Bill, in which he hints quite clearly that Home Rule is the solution. In the whole history of mankind I think that the most extraordinary thing is the union of Scotland and England. That two nations so different from almost every point of view you can think of should join in partnership, with so much respect for one another's sovereignty, so much frank mutual admiration, so much forebearance, is, I think, one of the wonders of the world, and especially when it has lasted for two hundred and thirty years. Is it worth while to imperil such a wonderful thing for the sake of a Bill of this kind?
I object to this Bill because the preliminary Report does not take into account or disclose that in Aberdeenshire,

251
for example, and in Banffshire, Kincardineshire, and the rest—in more than a quarter of Scotland, in nearly one-third—the classes of farmer and farm servant are so loosely divided that members of the one pass freely into the other without difficulty and therefore no distinction should be drawn. If you, by this Bill, place farmers on one side and farm servants on the other they will keep to those positions. Your Lordships will remember how difficult it was during the War to get farm servants to accept promotion because they did not wish to leave their mates. If this Bill passes you will get exactly the same thing happening. I object also to the Bill because it will substitute casual labour for permanent labour in agriculture; because also it is incomplete as it stands; and because, if left alone, it will put too much power into the hands of a Department which I submit has not shown itself impartial in the preliminary inquiry. I object also because it will cause the greatest discontent in many parts of Scotland. Most of all I object to this Bill because, under the pretence of bringing great benefits to the farm servants of Scotland, it is really going to do them the greatest possible injury. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out ("now") and at the end of the Motion insert ("this day six months").(Lord Saltoun.)
LORD MARLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken stated that he was going to open the batting against the Government and was going to destroy the bowling. He has had a very long innings, but I am bound to confess he has not made many runs. On the contrary, to us on these Benches, as umpires in this dispute on the Government Benches—we have our own disputes and our own disagreements on this side of the House but we can on this occasion act as umpires—it seemed that the noble Lord had become a bowler himself. He has been bowling steadily for three-quarters of an hour, and it seems to me, speaking from a purely objective point of view, that a good deal of his bowling has consisted of wides. He began by saying that he spoke for the farm servants of Scotland, but he gave away his case by at once admitting that a great many of the farm servants he knew were supporting this Bill. He did not tell your Lordships, so
252
far as I could gather, that the Scottish Farm Servants' Union are supporting the Bill. They do not altogether like it, as I shall explain in a moment, but they are giving general support to the Bill. That is a fact which the noble Lord failed to lay before your Lordships.
I can leave out that wide of which he was guilty in an attack on myself and my Party when he said we were accused, "rightly" accused, of desiring to subvert the Constitution. If that is so, my blood-stained hands must be a matter of profound regret, but I have tried to wash them, and I can assure the noble Lord that I personally find very little sign of this subverting of the Constitution which appears to frighten him. He did pay us one compliment when he said that the Labour Party used your Lordships' House to introduce first-class measures. That is quite true. He himself appears to admit that this is a first-class measure because he foresaw the destruction of the Empire if it were carried, as Home Rule would grow in Scotland leading to the break-up of the United Kingdom and eventually of the Empire. So I suppose he considers this is a first-class measure. But I do think the Government have something to answer in his indictment that they did not let the Scottish Peers know the date of the Second Reading, or, at any rate, of the alteration of the date, if that accusation is accurate. It must be particularly trying for members of your Lordships' House to come a long way, especially from Aberdeen—it costs a great deal of money—and then to go back again without any debate. I think there is a great deal in that point. That is a good ball, if I may say so, and the Government should answer it in the course of their reply.
The noble Lord stated that the Bill was going to cause a surplus of labour in the industry. He said that the Unemployment Insurance Bill caused unemployment, and that if you paid money for unemployed persons, you would always get unemployed people to take that money. I have never heard a more ridiculous argument by any member of your Lord-ships' House. It is time that sort of argument was jumped on heavily. It is almost incredible that an argument of that type can be put forward in these days when, for years, most members of your Lordships' House have learned to read

253
and write intelligently. I cannot understand why we have an argument of that type put forward seriously by a noble Lord, unless he imagines that members of your Lordships' House are incapable of serious thought. The noble Lord quoted a letter that he had from the South of France, where, I suppose, the writer was conferring with agricultural labourers who are in the South of France recovering from their annual work, in which he said that the results of this Bill would be more machinery. Of course, we want more machinery in agriculture. One of the problems of the agricultural industry is that we are not employing sufficient machinery. More machinery adequately used means cheaper production, and therefore a readier sale for the products of the industry, and a greater fund available for wages, especially to skilled labour. That seems to me an elementary argument, and if that is the argument for this Bill, then I, as an umpire, welcome it and give it support. I hope the Government will take courage from that argument and proceed with the Bill.
The noble Lord quoted a number of extracts from the Report of the Caithness Committee. He does not seem to like the Caithness Committee. He appears to have some objections to it. He was not satisfied. He wanted another inquiry. He said that Scotland had not been taken into account, but, reading the names of the members of this Committee, it seems to me they are mainly Scottish. I may be wrong—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, will tell us, if they are not Scottish—but to me they appear to be Scottish, and therefore they ought to know something about the position in Scotland. I hardly think a Committee presided over by a man of the knowledge of the noble Earl who was Chairman can justifiably be accused, to use the words of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, of foolishness, of credulousness, of its Report being entirely illusory, and of its Report being against the weight of evidence.
LORD SALTOUN: May I interrupt the noble Lord? I should be the last person in the world to suggest that the noble Earl who presided over the Committee was foolish. I never intended to call him anything of the kind. He is a great friend of mine.
LORD MARLEY: I am very glad to hear the noble Lord say that because I think it was a very regrettable expression, and I am very glad he has withdrawn it. It was quite unnecessary to say it of a Committee of the eminence of this Committee which has produced a Report of the value of this Report. I hope noble Lords will take the trouble to read the Report. There is a great deal, it seems to me, of very real value in the Report upon the matter under discussion. There is no need to bring in questions of hours of work, which are discussed in the Report of the Committee but are not in the Bill. It does not seem to me that there is any point in discussing the question of hours of work. There is a lot in the Committee's Report which is not included in the Bill, which only deals with one quite minor and small aspect of the Report of the Committee. There are certain things in the Report which I think are well worth reading.
Take for example the question of tied houses. That is a vitally important matter which affects the subject of the Bill we are discussing. On page 17, paragraph 56 says:
"On the evidence submitted to us it is clear that the housing question is one of the direct causes of the unsatisfactory position of the farm worker to-day. The fact that he is faced with the loss of his house at the end of his engagement … places him in an inferior position when it comes to a question of bargaining upon the price to be placed upon the only commodity he has to offer, i.e., his labour."
That is common sense, and the Committee surely are justified in bringing forward that aspect of the problem as an argument in favour not of doing away with the tied cottage, because that would take years to carry through and there are many argument in favour of a tied house, but of doing away with the disadvantages of the tied cottage to the lower-paid agricultural worker, by securing for him a minimum wage below which he cannot be forced to sink due to the inferiority of his bargaining position as the occupier of a tied house. On page 18, the Committee emphasise this point. They say:
"We are satisfied that under the tied-house system it is not possible for the farm worker to achieve any real independence, but whatever form any modification of the system may take, it is obvious that the process must be a gradual one."
The Committee have faced a difficult situation with, it seems to me, great

255
courage. Far from being a foolish Report, it seems to me to be a Report which deserves very careful study, and I think that in so far as the Government have followed that Report in the matter of fixing wages they are to be congratulated.
Wages are dealt with specifically on page 23 of the Report, and the Committee point out how difficult it has been to get accurate information with regard to the general wage level in Scotland. They describe their method of obtaining this information, and while, of course, it is possible to produce evidence on either side against the average results suggested by the Committee, yet the Committee seem reasonably to prove that they have made very careful inquiry and have come to a reasonable decision. They say, among other things, that the farmers on the local committees would normally be expected to pay reasonably good wages, but it is probable that the returns would reflect somewhat higher rates than the usual. That is because the farmers on the committees are men who take seriously their position and may be expected, therefore, to be rather better employers than would be the farmers in remoter districts where there may be no control whatever over wages. Then the Committee go on to say:
"Whatever the merits of the figures, it is clear that they do not disclose what may be regarded as the main evil of the existing lack of regulation of wages—viz., the cases in which extremely low wages are being paid and the wide fluctuation in wages in general, even on farms in the same neighbourhood."
So far as I understand it, this Bill is to secure that in no circumstances shall very low wages, upon which no man can really live, be paid in Scotland. It is not a question of Scotland coming up to England. It is a question of Scotland setting its own house in order in a state of affairs which has only arisen within the last few years—the state of affairs which has arisen as a result of the financial crisis, as a result of the difficulty in regard to the primary products generally, coupled with a gradual rise in the cost of living which has hit agricultural workers in the midst of an actual diminution in the wages they have been receiving. That rise in the cost of living is not dealt with in the Report, but it is known to all members of your Lordships' House, and I do not think we should be doing our
256
duty in an objective examination of both sides of this problem if we did not recall that rise in the cost of living, which has coincided, as the Committee point out, with an actual fall in wages. Our objection to the Bill is that it has not followed the recommendation of this Committee, that the Central Wages Board should have the power to vary the recommendations of the local wages committees.
That recommendation, which is made by the Committee on page 34 (No. 6 of the Final Recommendations) is quite categorical. They say:
"The Central Wages Board should be charged with the duty of giving effect by order to proposals made by the district wages committees for the determination of minimum rates for their respective areas; but the Board should have power to vary or amend such proposals as they may think fit (after consultation with the district wages committee concerned)."
I think it is regrettable, when there has been such a close and careful argument by the Committee with regard to the powers of the Central Wages Board, that the Bill should have omitted this right for a modification of wages recommendations. On the other hand, I can see that the Government may say that if they are assailed on one side because they are doing too much, and from another side because they are not doing enough, that indicates that they are taking a medium position which will probably be the most satisfactory line to take in an argument in which there are bound to be two widely differing opinions. My own belief is that it may be possible to make a slight modification which would improve the Bill from our point of view. In any case a Bill of this kind is bound to result in a far better understanding or both sides, which in the end will be to the value of Scotland, and, above all, to the value of the agricultural industry which is so important in the Border Counties.
THE EARL OF STAIR: My Lords, I put down a Motion for the rejection of this Bill mainly because I could not find anybody else to do so. It is very rarely that I intervene in debates in this House, nor did I intervene very often in another place where I was a member continuously for thirty-one years. In fact, I have never intervened except when I thought no one else was likely to do so equally well or better than I could. I think that your Lordships will agree that my noble

257
friend Lord Saltoun traversed almost every point, and he did it probably better than I could have done it. My object in opposing this Bill has not been to try to defeat the Government, but to try to persuade them if possible to proceed a good deal more cautiously than they have been advised to go by the Caithness Report or than they have actually gone. My attitude at this moment might be considerably altered if I could be assured whether I heard correctly the last sentence in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona. I am not sure what he meant when he spoke about referring the Bill to Committee. Did he intend to indicate that the Bill could be referred to a Select Committee where it would get more adequate consideration?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: May I be allowed to make it clear to my noble friend and to the House that what I intended to say, and what I think I said, was that this Bill would deserve very careful consideration by your Lordships in Committee.
THE EARL OF STAIR: I am extremely disappointed. I have never yet known a Bill receive adequate consideration from a Committee of the whole House either here or in another place. I will confine myself to trying to emphasise some points. My noble friend Lord Saltoun has asked me to emphasise that one of his complaints against the evidence given before the Caithness Committee was that there was no evidence whatever from independent farm labour. The only evidence came from members of the Farm Servants' Union which the Committee themselves admit only represents a small section of the farm workers—and probably the more discontented of them. I have read the Report with considerable care and the more I read the less satisfied I was that the evidence was conclusive or accurate in regard to figures or anything else.
With regard to the statements about the fall in wages, I may say that I have been farming on a very large scale on both sides of Scotland and on widely differing classes of farms ever since the War, and in my experience, if there has been any fall in wages, there has only been a very slight fall. We have only very recently included agricultural workers in State insurance and it seems to me to be rash, to say the least of it,
258
to start another experiment such as is entailed by this Bill until we have at any rate some indication of what may be the results of including this body of workers in State insurance. The noble Lord, Lord Marley, questioned the statement of my noble friend Lord Saltoun that bringing certain classes into insurance would increase the apparent number of unemployed. I do not think anybody will deny that after a considerable number of workers, in an industry in which there was previously no unemployment insurance, have been paying unemployment insurance contributions for a number of years, some of them—perhaps the worst of them—will want to get their money back.
LORD MARLEY: If I may venture to interrupt I would say that it is a case of post hoc sed non propter hoc.
THE EARL OF STAIR: I have forgotten most of my Latin, and I am afraid I do not understand the allusion. In addition to that, there will be a large body of men not really genuine continuous farm workers who will come under this insurance, and the result in statistics I think will become more misleading than ever. I do not wish to continue repeating things which have already been said a good deal better than I can put them, but I would like again to appeal to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill and to ask, if the Bill is given a Second Reading, that it be referred to a Select Committee where the whole matter can be thrashed out more thoroughly than has been the case so far.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of this Bill. I am sorry to differ from my noble friends the Earl of Stair and Lord Saltoun. My noble friend Lord Saltoun gave us a very full and interesting description of the conditions of agriculture in his own County of Aberdeen. It is rather curious that my two noble friends should come one from the extreme north-east and the other from the extreme south-west. I myself come from somewhere in between. I feel bound to support this Bill. In the first instance, I confess, I was somewhat doubtful as to the need for it, but when I studied the Report of the Committee presided over by my noble friend Lord Caithness I found very strong argument in favour of

259
it. I do not agree with my noble friend Lord Saltoun's criticism of the Report. It seems to me that the Committee do seem to have been able to give a very accurate account of the conditions of agriculture in different parts of Scotland. It is true that statistical information and figures are very difficult to get, but I think they have done their best. The difficulty of getting accurate figures is precisely one of those things which it is hoped this Bill will remedy.
I think Lord Saltoun somewhat forgot that it is not to standardise and fix all wages but to fix minimum wages. I would be exceedingly sorry if the object were to make all wages uniform. I maintain that it is not in the interests of agriculture or of Scotland that the best and the most intelligent farm workers should migrate to the towns, and yet that is happening to a considerable extent. It is quite true, and it is not confined to Aberdeen, that some farm servants have risen and taken farms. I am sorry Lord Saltoun was so depressed by the sight of our large farms in the south of Scotland, but I know plenty of places where men have got on and taken farms themselves. I know of one example a little time ago of a man who had taken a small farm, and I should not be surprised if he went on to a bigger one. That drift, it seems to me, can only be remedied in two ways, by securing better housing conditions—and we are going a long way to get that at the present time through the working of the Rural Housing Act. In my own county, nearly every farm cottage has a bath and bathroom and hot water laid on, so that their homes are as good as those in the towns occupied by the working class. As regards pay, the conditions are not so satisfactory. Many of these men do get a fair wage, but wages have fallen owing to the very depressed condition of agriculture in Scotland. It is hoped that they will tend to rise. In fact, a farmer told me the other day that he thought they would go up a few shillings.
We do wish to ensure that these men get adequate remuneration. I would like to emphasise this point, that a good all-round farm worker is really a skilled man, and he ought to receive a wage adequate to his skill. He has far more responsible work, and skilled work, to do than many
260
a man employed in the factory or in engineering work. I saw men the other day who do the same job every hour, every day of the year round, a job that is comparatively easy to learn. But the ploughman has to look after and care for the horses; he is also entrusted with the working of a good deal of machinery. In these days of mechanisation it has become more and more important to have skilled men, and you will not get them or keep them unless they are adequately paid. And they have to do different jobs all through the year. There are many other things which require real skill, and I contend that it is very important that he should be assured of an adequate remuneration for his work. In my part of the country wages have not gone down so much, but there are areas where they are too low to support a family. It has come to my knowledge all too often that married farm workers have had to apply for assistance, and we have had to give them assistance as being necessitous under the Education Act in order to provide boots and clothing for their children. That ought not to be the case with any man employed in full work.
A man in regular employment ought to be receiving a wage to enable him to obtain food and clothing for his family. It seems to me that thirty shillings a week is the very lowest sum on which a man can maintain his family. The system has been in operation for twelve years in England, and so far as I know, it is working well. I hope that some of the noble Lords with more experience of this side of the Border will tell us how the system is working, but I am convinced that with good will results ought to be good. I believe this system does provide sufficient scope for the necessary elasticity. It has been said that the best farmers have nothing to fear. It is maintained, of course, that there must be a certain amount of elasticity as regards hours, and that applies particularly, as Lord Saltoun has said, to shepherds. It seems to me that properly representative men should be appointed on both sides. I should like it to be laid down that these representatives, whether they be on the employers' or the workers' side, should be men really engaged in agriculture, practical men knowing what they are doing. The noble Earl, Lord Stair, asks me to add that they should not only be men employed

261
in agriculture but belonging to the districts for which the board is appointed. It would be very undesirable to have one man as organiser sitting on different boards and travelling about Scotland.
I hope that, subject to such alterations as may be permitted in this House, your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading to-day, because I honestly believe that it will not interfere with the really skilled men. However much we multiply smallholdings we shall not, in that way, solve the problem. In that, as in other industries, more and more mechanisation will come in. Other trades are able to fix a standard of wages by negotiations with the organisations on both sides. In agriculture it is very difficult to come to an agreement. We did have an agreement and it did work well for some time. I do not feel that there is any need to detain your Lordships longer, but, as one who has knowledge of farming for many years past, I give this measure my support and believe that it is for the real good of Scotland and will help to maintain the best class of agricultural population in our rural districts.
THE EARL OF ELGIN AND KINCARDINE: My Lords, in the long discourse of the noble Lord who moved the rejection of this Bill, we were tempted to travel over rather a wide field which is not really contained in the pages of the Bill. May I remind your Lordships that the kernel of the Bill is contained in Clause 2 (7):
"In fixing minimum rates a committee shall, so far as practicable, secure for able-bodied men such wages as in the opinion of the committee are adequate to promote efficiency and to enable a man in an ordinary case to maintain himself and his family in accordance with such standard of comfort as may be reasonable in relation to the nature of his occupation."
That, I think, is the kernel of the Bill. It is a Bill to establish a minimum wage below which a man would not be receiving a reasonable return for his labour.
The noble Lord who moved the rejection of the Bill, and, I think, Lord Stair who followed him, criticised the bringing of this Bill into your Lordships' House and particularly criticised its introduction at this period. They said there was no hurry, that more time could be taken, and that the Bill should be delayed for further investigation. In
262
fact, Lord Stair pressed very strongly that if a Second Reading were given to the Bill it should be committed to a Select Committee rather than to a full Committee of your Lordships' House. Surely the intention of the Government in bringing the Bill into your Lordships' House at this period is quite clear: to give us an opportunity of thoroughly investigating the Bill, looking at the various points in Committee and carefully "vetting" it before it goes to its next stage. I can remember, although my period in this House is not so long as that of some of your Lordships, that practically every year a complaint has come up in this House that Bills are thrown upon us in June and July when there is no time to deal with them. This Bill, which is of vital importance to Scotland, is now presented to us at an early stage and we are given the opportunity of investigating it carefully in Committee.
There were also a complaint that the Bill was unnecessary, because conditions were improving, and a warning that we should look again before we leapt; that we were asked to take a sudden leap over an abyss and that we might land in the abyss instead of crossing it. Has there ever been a Bill in which the ground has been more carefully prepared? I do not for a moment admit that because a system has succeeded in England it will necessarily succeed in Scotland. At any rate, however, we have been sufficiently cautious to try out the system in England before suggesting that it should be brought into Scotland, and we have the experience of thirteen years' operation of this system in England on which to base the Bill applying it to Scotland. In addition to that, we have had the Report of the Caithness Committee, which has been frequently referred to in the debate to-night. On this point I think Lord Saltoun, in his criticism, said that evidence was not available. Surely here again it is clear that evidence given on such a matter as wages is necessarily confidential. It would not be given unless those who gave it were confident that their trust would be respected, and for that reason it is clear that evidence on such matters must remain confidential.
In turning to the Report we find in paragraph 97 this very striking record of the Committee's findings:

263
"With these considerations in mind, and after a very careful review of all the evidence submitted to us, we have come unhesitatingly to the conclusion that there is a direct and immediate need for the introduction by Statute of some form of machinery for securing the proper regulation of wages and conditions of employment."
In face of that, and in face of the preparation of the ground to which I have referred, the Government could not be held to be doing anything else but failing in their duty if they disregarded a Report unanimously presented in those terms, and failed to bring in some measure to meet the request made to them by the workers in this industry. The Government have been constantly called upon to take an interest in and to do something to help agriculture. They have proved themselves willing to do something from various aspects: for example, they have improved the position with regard to wheat, beet sugar, live stock, and the growing of vegetables. An intelligent view of the situation must, however, surely, above all, take into consideration the conditions of work and life of those who are employed in the daily routine of the business, and their proper remuneration. Hence I find adequate reason for bringing in a Bill of this kind.
We have constantly had put before us in Scotland the difficulty of obtaining satisfactory and authoritative statistics, and here is another reason for the introduction of a Bill of this kind. In England and Wales, which have been operating an Act for the last thirteen years, it is possible through the records of the Ministry of Agriculture to obtain an authoritative survey of the conditions, the numbers of people employed and the wages. It is not possible to do so in Scotland. Though these facts and statistics are collated by the Department of Agriculture, they are collated, if I may use the term, in rather a haphazard way. There is no complete survey from which it is possible to collate full and accurate information. When we have added to this the fact that in Scotland a large part of the farm servants' wage consists of perquisites and that those perquisites vary in different parts of Scotland and even in different parts of the same county, we see that it is impossible to arrive at an accurate estimate of what a farm servant's wage really is.
That is the general situation, but there are three points which are of material
264
interest at the present moment. Though the conditions are better at the present time and wages are tending upwards, we cannot forget that the industry has passed through a terrible depression, in which the wages of the farm servants had to bear a very considerable part of the burden; and in comparing the fall of wages in England and Wales with that in Scotland we find that the average decrease in England and Wales was only Is. Id. as against something like 4s. in Scotland. I do not say that that was entirely due to the operation of the particular Act, but the Act did have the effect of helping to keep the minimum wage steady at a point below which it was impossible to go. The second point which I should like to make is that there has been a definite request to the Government from representatives of the workers for action to be taken, and this definite request was backed and homologated by the Committee which went into the full discussion and investigation—the Caithness Committee. To throw out a Bill of this kind on Second Reading without considering the details would be at variance with proper policy, would be hurtful to Scotland, and hurtful to the cause of agriculture and those employed in it.
Further, we have the point which has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, the pull of the town. Certainly those of us who come from the midlands of Scotland, the industrial belt, cannot neglect the fact that there is a very decided pull on the lives of those employed in agriculture by the attraction of the extra amenities, the opportunities for social and recreational and educational activities, which they can get by moving into the towns. And, once moved, it is very rare that you get them back again. Conversely there never was a time when it was more important to keep the very best intellects, the very best labour available for work on the land. We have the mechanisation of farms, we have the various new processes which are being brought into farming operations through science—grass drying and other new processes. All these require brains as well as muscle; and for that reason it is most important to make the lot and the lives of these workers in agriculture better and more satisfactory, and to give them the confidence which comes from knowing that their wages will not fall, as they did in the former slump—the con-

265
fidence which comes from a stable minimum wage.
I wish finally to emphasise that point. The Bill is not a Bill necessarily to increase the wage costs throughout the whole industry. It is to prevent the under-dog from being taken advantage of; it is to prevent the decline of wages from that level, in the terms of the Bill, which it is reasonable for a man to have in order that he may bring up his family and get a reasonable return for the labour which he does. I trust that your Lordships will give not only a sympathetic consideration to the Bill at this stage, and accord it your support if the Motion for its rejection is pressed to a Division, but that you will take the same line as was taken by the Chamber of Agriculture in Scotland; you will accept the position, and do your best to make the Bill work smoothly.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: My Lords, I can well imagine that all those who are interested in agriculture in Scotland and in the production of food must view this Bill with grave apprehension. I recognise that it is perfectly impossible for your Lordships to reject the Bill on Second Reading: it would instantly be said that you were standing between the poor agricultural labourer and an increase of wage, and I for one should be the last person to prevent his getting a well-deserved increase in wage. But, in spite of all the nice things that have been said about the agricultural labourer and the desire that he should have sufficient on which to bring up his family in happiness and plenty, one has to consider who has to pay the wages, and out of what the wages have to be paid. It is very easy for those noble Lords and others who have not got to face the difficulties of making a living out of farming to preach and to say that those engaged on the farms should have better wages and better working conditions. I for one am perfectly certain that this Bill will have the effect of raising wages. It had that effect in England, and will probably have that effect in Scotland.
I should like to refer to what the noble Earl who has just addressed us describes as the whole pith of the Bill. He quite rightly says it is contained in Clause 2 (7), which says:
"In fixing minimum rates a committee shall, so far as practicable, secure for able-bodied men such wages as in the opinion of
266
the committee are adequate to promote efficiency and to enable a man in an ordinary case to maintain himself and his family in accordance with such standard of comfort as may be reasonable in relation to the nature of his occupation."
Of course, having read that, one finds it perfectly impossible to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. But, against that, what is the position? These agricultural wages boards are to decide how much pay a labourer is to receive. They have not to consider what is the price of corn, or the price of cattle, or the price of anything that a farmer has to sell, but merely what is the smallest sum on which a labourer can live in comfort and happiness. That is to say that the sole thing which the committees have to decide is what is a living wage for an agricultural labourer, and not what the industry can afford to pay. Well, that is a very nice theory, and it is perhaps equitable, but I am not sure quite sure whether it is sound economics.
It is true that wages in Scotland have not gone up like wages in England. I think that is greatly due to the fact that in England the farmers have received more assistance from the Government. I need only mention the guarantee of a fixed price for wheat and the sugar beet subsidy, both of which largely affect some of the most distressed parts of agricultural England, but do not to anything like so large an extent affect very large districts in Scotland. I can safely say that almost the whole of the money which has been given under the wheat subsidy and the sugar beet subsidy has gone in the increased minimum wages which have been set by the agricultural boards in England. It seems rather hard that Scotland should have a Wages Bill thrust upon it without any adequate provision or promise that the Government are going to do anything to make farming a paying proposition in Scotland. I have only stated what my feelings about this Bill are. I think it is impossible for your Lordships to throw it out on Second Reading, but I feel most strongly that if Parliament, in its wisdom, is going to say that men are to have a living wage—agricultural labourers or any other workers—if that industry cannot afford to pay it, it will simply go out of existence. Agriculture both in England and in Scotland is very near the precipice now, except in very favourable districts, and I am perfectly certain that

267
if wages are raised much higher in Scotland, and the Government do nothing to help the farmers to pay better wages in future, then more farms than ever will go out of cultivation and less and less food will be grown.
You cannot have it both ways. If the agricultural workers are to have a decent living, then farming must be made a paying concern, and it is for the Government of to-day, if they insist—which I think they are perfectly right in doing—that people should have a living wage, to bring forward such measures as shall make it possible for those who employ these men to pay them a suitable and living wage. So far as I can see, there are only two ways in which this can be done. One is to put up the prices of agricultural produce, and the other is for the Government to subsidise wages. I am quite certain that unless the Government are prepared to take some steps to improve the condition of agriculture and make it more profitable, the only effect of insisting on a rising and increased scale of wages will be to put more land out of cultivation and to have fewer men employed on the land, and to make agriculture even more depressed than it is to-day.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I was sorry to hear my noble friend who has just sat down suggest we are not paying a living wage to our farm servants in Scotland.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: No.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: The noble Earl referred to the statement on the face of this Bill as requiring a living wage to be paid to farm servants, and said that if this Bill were passed then obviously it would be necessary to pay a living wage. From that I infer that the noble Earl has suggested that farm servants in Scotland are not to-day paid a living wage.
THE EARL OF ANCASTER: What I suggested was that a great many farm servants in Scotland are receiving a very small wage indeed.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: I have great sympathy with the Government over this Bill. They have been approached by a small but persistent body of workers with the object of stabilising the wages paid to farm labourers in Scotland. If that
268
demand had not been preceded by anything else, I should have said that that formed a very weak part of the Caithness Commission's Report, but, as a matter of fact, we all know in Scotland that this question of regulation of farm servants' wages is not one which has just begun to agitate the minds of our people. The question has been at issue for a long time. We know that the farmers attempted collective action with the object of regulating and adjusting wages, and we know also that in certain parts of Scotland there are already agreements of a voluntary nature doing this self-same thing. I take the point which I think is one of the most important in connection with this matter to-day, quite apart from the regulation of wages. In this country we are in the position of having at our command only three or four months' supply of foodstuffs for our own consumption. It has been indicated in speeches by important members of His Majesty's Government that it is necessary to increase the food supply of our country. Unless you are going to regulate and stabilise the wages of agricultural workers in Scotland in the same way as has been done in England, then I fear you will have a drift away from the farms into the towns such as has been going on already. In these days also we have to face up to the fact that where the employers are given favourable consideration by the Government, through protection or through subsidies or through quotas, or by some other method which, at any rate, enables these employers to increase their livelihood, then it is necessary to see that the workers receive the same consideration.
For twelve years the same measure as is proposed in this Bill has been tried out and worked in England, and whilst I subscribe to the belief and knowledge that there are many matters in Scotland in which we differ from England, I would not subscribe to the alarming suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Saltoun that this measure could possibly affect the issue of Home Rule for Scotland or lead to the downfall of the Empire. From what I have heard—and I have taken steps to inquire from time to time—on the whole the wage regulation committees in England are working satisfactorily and well. If that is the case in England, I am sure that we in Scotland, who always have assumed a state of superiority in

269
matters of administration and that sort of thing, ought to be able to administer this Bill through our committees just as successfully as the measure has been administered in England.
I am also given to understand that the Scottish Unionist members, whilst not agreeing in all details, as I do not myself, with the provisions of this Bill, support it in principle and intend to support it when it goes to the House of Commons. If the Scottish Unionist members, who are dependent upon votes for their successful return to another place, are prepared to support this Bill, I feel that your Lordships ought to do the same, and I sincerely hope that my noble friend Lord Saltoun will not press his Motion to a Division. I hope also that at later stages of the Bill the same attitude will be maintained. I was rather alarmed at what the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, said a few minutes ago. He said in effect: "Let this Bill through now and then we will see what we do with it later." I hope that the action of your Lordships later will be what the action of your Lordships will be now; that is, to give a Second Reading to this Bill, and then let it pass through this House with whatever Amendments may be deemed necessary.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, of all the speakers who have addressed your Lordships this afternoon there is, I think, only one who really put his finger upon the crux of the whole matter, and that was the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, when he drew attention to the fact that farming cannot be carried on except under economic conditions. I propose in a very few sentences to explain to your Lordships why we have had a situation in which wages in England have recovered in a way that they have not done in Scotland. The reason is simply this, that though the depression affected both countries, and while there was a tremendous fall in the prices received for agricultural product, at the same time far more was done by the Government for England than was done for Scotland. The noble Earl, Lord Elgin, alluded airily to the great benefits derived from the wheat quota and the sugar beet legislation. He was perfectly correct, but, as the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, said, those benefits to all intents and purposes were non-existent as far as Scotland was concerned.
270
The mixed farming system of Scotland means that for the last few years our main primary products, oats, beef, potatoes and mutton, have been for the most part in a very sad state of depression. To-day there has been a certain amount of recovery, and things are undoubtedly better. Thanks to some extent to the Potato Marketing Board—one of the few Boards that have justified their existence—an adequate price is now obtained for potatoes. Prices for sheep are also considerably better, and oats have recently risen, but no one could claim as a producer of cattle that prices for beef, prices per live cwt., have yet reached anything higher than an absurd figure. While something was done for England, Scotland lagged behind, but there is no reason to assume that Scottish wages are not going to rise equally with those in England in the near future.
The complaint some of us feel is that this legislation is being rushed through because not sufficient time has been given to see whether the lag of wages behind prices would not be overcome, as has always been the case in the past sooner or later. I think that the Government are going a little too fast in abolishing the method of individual agreements for a collective system without having really had sufficient time to judge what is happening in the agricultural world so far as prices are concerned, and I must say that I subscribe to the opinion that the Report of the Caithness Committee cannot be considered a really good one. For myself I call it a scamped Report, because I do not think it was possible to deal adequately with the evidence which ought to have been dealt with in the short space of nine sittings and by calling upon merely nine farmers, however eminent—and many of them are known to me—and seven farm workers, all members of a union which is of complete unimportance as far as agricultural life in Scotland is concerned.
That is really not enough to make anything like an adequate investigation, and what I am afraid of is that, while the wages of certain farm workers will be definitely raised by this legislation, there may well be a reduction in the wages of many of those who are more highly paid to-day. I am afraid of men being put out of employment. What I should like to see is a position in which wages much higher than they are at the present time

271
were paid to the Scottish farm worker, who has probably the longest hours and does the hardest work of any one in Scotland, but I am by no means convinced that this measure is going to bring that about. I think that further and much more searching consideration should have been given before this Bill was introduced. At the present time I am not prepared to vote against it, but I feel that it would have been better had further consideration been given to the subject so that we might have had more material on which to base what must be a very important decision.
LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, I would like to say a word of two in support of the Second Reading of this measure. As the last speaker, Lord Mansfield, said, I think that although we have not been doing so much to help in Scotland as has been done in England by protection, yet now we have protection the price of oats, the price of sheep, and so on, have definitely improved. I think that, as we have admitted protection for the price of agricultural products, we shall be driven sooner or later to accept—and we may as well accept now—the principle of protecting agricultural wages. Too much emphasis has been put upon the fact that this is a minimum wage Bill, because I gather from subsection (7) of Clause 2, which has been constantly referred to, that the minimum wage is only as far as the industry permits. There is no fixing of a wage regardless of the industry.
I will not say more on the general subject as so much has been far better said already than I can say it, but there is one point I should like to refer to. My noble friend Lord Saltoun, who spoke with such great knowledge of the subject, dwelt almost entirely upon the question of the agricultural labourers. I hope that as the result of this measure we shall have more permanency of employment amongst agricultural labourers. It is unfortunately a fact, as your Lordships know very well, that many of our ploughmen are engaged for one year only, and then move on to another farm; flitting, as we call it in Scotland. I think the tendency of this measure will be to make that less necessary. There are two main causes, I think, for this movement. The first is that a man wants to get greater experience, and the second is that he wants to improve the wage that he is
272
getting. If there is a standard wage fixed, that second motive for going elsewhere will be withdrawn. I hope that will have the result of more permanent residence for the agricultural population. The result of this annual flitting, which is so common, is that children in Scotland go from one school to another year after year, and so there is very little permanency in their education. I am sure that your Lordships will all agree that that cannot be good for the education of the children. Nor can it be good for the homes of our country.
Houses on the farms in Scotland are not all that we would like them to be, and one cause of the unsatisfactory condition of the houses is that they are not used as homes but are regarded merely as camping grounds for a year. Anything that will tend to make the homes of farm servants more permanent will, I think, be tremendously to the good. It would also help the landowners. Landowners can now be helped under the rural housing scheme to improve the houses on the farms, but efforts in that direction will be thrown away if people do not make these houses their homes. We are getting better houses and let us hope that the families of farm workers will get the benefit of them. I think this Bill will tend in that direction, and for that reason I hope it will be given a Second Reading.
THE EARL OF LINDSAY: My Lords, although the hour is late I hope I may be allowed to detain you for a few minutes. Anyone listening to this debate might get the impression that farm labourers in Scotland are being paid almost starvation wages. I speak with a certain amount of authority because I have two fairly large farms in hand, and I have lost, as I suppose many of your Lordships have lost, a fair amount of money on them. It must be remembered that in my part of the world at all events there is something else besides wages. If you have a 350-acre farm and have thirteen times in the year to pay seventy pounds or thereabouts that takes some getting; but the farm labourer gets other things besides. There are potatoes for instance. Two tons of potatoes may be worth very little in some years, but in other years they are worth about eight pounds. Then there is milk. The workers in my part of the world were asked some time ago to take a shilling a day in lieu

273
of that, but they very wisely would not do so. Again there are twelve bowls of oatmeal.
There is another point to be borne in mind. Landed proprietors in England, I suppose, as well as in Scotland, are being made to put their cottages into a condition that accords with modern standards. I do not complain of that, but it is costing landed proprietors a very considerable amount of money. I may mention as an instance that on one small holding I have had to improve cottages and the bill for it is about £700, or something like ten years' rental. That sort of thing is going on all over the place, and therefore I think landed proprietors are entitled to be considered in this Bill. If farmers are going to be called upon to pay a very much higher wage I do not know how they are going to afford to pay much in the way of rent. If these wages are to be paid it will be incumbent on the Government, I think, to see that prices are maintained. We have no guarantee of any sort in this measure that they will be maintained. I agree that at present they are improving, but no one knows when there may be a slump and when it would be impossible to pay very much in the way of increased wages. We have also to remember that there is an Insurance Bill which will throw a fresh burden on the farmer. With one thing and another I do not think it can be said that the farm labourer in Scotland, at all events, is being neglected. I agree that on some farms wages are not so good as they might be, but on large farms wages in Scotland, generally speaking, compare very favourably with those in other parts. I do not intend in any way to oppose this Bill, because I think it is a good Bill, but I agree with previous speakers in hoping mat it will be very carefully examined in Committee.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, we have had a very valuable discussion on this Bill, valuable because it will show how keen an interest is taken in this matter in Scotland. It is important, as I indicated in my opening speech, that we should do our utmost to improve the Bill as much as possible when it goes through the Committee stage. I think I may be allowed to pay a tribute to the opponents of the Bill for the reasonableness with which they have spoken, and for the great sincerity that
274
they have shown. I should like to reply to the point made, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, in which he questioned the introduction of the Bill in this House at the beginning of the year. The noble Earl, Lord Elgin, gave an answer to that when he said that it showed that the Government appreciated that there is in this House a body of opinion specially qualified to deal with the questions raised in this Bill. It was for that reason that the Bill was introduced in your Lordships' House, so that we might avoid that circumstance, which occurs so often, of having the Bill thrust upon us at the end of the Session after it has been dealt with in another place. I hope, therefore, that the fullest opportunity will be taken when this Bill is in Committee of dealing with the points which have been raised in the debate to-day.
The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, and others suggested postponement of the Bill, but as I said in my first speech I think that a very unreasonable request after the Government have satisfied themselves that legislation on the lines of this Bill is wanted. This matter has been made the subject of a special Report, and the question of wage regulation in Scotland has been a live one for the last two or three years. It was only after voluntary negotiations had failed that this question was referred to the Caithness Committee. I would like to reply also to the complaint made by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, that the evidence taken before the Caithness Committee was not made available to the public and to your Lordships. I understand that the Caithness Committee decided at the beginning of their task to exclude the public and the Press from their meetings, and that they proceeded on the basis that the evidence given before them should not be disclosed, for the very good reason that they took the view that witnesses would be more frank and more forthcoming if they understood beforehand that what they said would be treated as confidential evidence. This, I should have thought, is obviously a matter closely touching the personal relations between employer and employed, and I think no further elaborate defence of that course is required from me.
The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, also, with some justice, questioned the size and representation of the Farm Servants' Union. I have had some inquiries made

275
about that, and I am informed that this union has 187 branches, of which twenty-four have been formed during the past twelve months, in view, of course, of the prospect of wages committees being set up under this Bill. I think the question of nomination or election was also raised. On that I would just like to say that so far as I can see in advance, it is impossible to say which would be best for each district. It will have to be decided in the light of the conditions as regards the strength of the union and so forth. Still, it may be possible to decide on nomination as a general rule. Going back for one moment to the procedure in this House, I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Stair, who asked if this Bill could not be taken before a Select Committee. I think it would hardly be doing justice to that experience to which I have already alluded in your Lordships' House, if it were decided not to take the Bill here. The experts are in this House, and we have heard from them this afternoon. I hope to get this Bill sent to another place in the best possible form, with such amendment as may seem necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Marley, raised the question of cost of living and asked why it was not referred to in the Caithness Report, but I would only point out to him that the rise was not very marked until recently, and that, I think, is the reason why the Committee did not refer to it in their Report which was published in July of last year.
Of course, a great many other points came up in the debate to-day which I think your Lordships will recognise are points which require discussion on the Committee stage, and I hope, as I said, we shall have full discussion then. I think the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, said that Scotland had derived nothing in the way of benefits for the farming community, but I would point out that it is hoped that the industry will derive some benefit from the £5,000,000 for beef producers and the 60 per cent. tariff which I understand is also introduced. These are some of the various measures which may help that portion of the industry. I do not wish to enter into the question of Home Rule for Scotland because I think that is so far outside the purview of our deliberations to-day that it would be undesirable that I should do so. But I do want to assure the noble Lord once again
276
that it is the intention of the Government that this Bill should be examined very closely in Committee, and we hope, if this is done, that we shall be able to send it away from this House in a manner satisfactory to all those who have raised criticisms.
THE EARL OF STAIR: My Lords, we beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EAST INDIA LOANS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Older): Bill reported without amendment.

RESERVE FORCES BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, this is a short and simple but none the less important Bill, As your Lordships will be aware, the Army Reserve is maintained (under authority of the Reserve Forces Act, 1882) in order that trained men may be available to bring the Regular Army up to proper strength for war purposes. Generally speaking, the Reserve is created by requiring men to enlist for a specified period of Colour service followed by a specified period of service on the Reserve. For instance, the normal period of service for the infantry is twelve years—seven with the Colours and five on the Reserve. There are variations of service in respect of other arms into which I need not now enter. Under the Act of 1882, the Reserve can be called up "in case of imminent national danger or of great emergency," and that is done by Proclamation, necessitating prior information being given to Parliament, which involves of course the summoning of Parliament during any period of recess.
Circumstances may arise, however, in which additional men are needed to bring units of the Regular Army up to the required establishment for foreign service—and I emphasise that—during a minor emergency which does not involve a declaration of war. Cases in point are the Shanghai troubles of 1927, and the

277
recent disturbances in Palestine. Something less than 2,500 reservists were needed for Palestine, and it would be an unnecessarily cumbrous procedure to proclaim the calling out of the Army Reserve in order to obtain that number. The problem of making provision for small-scale reinforcement of the Regular Army was solved by the Reserve Forces and Militia Act of 1898, the Act which this Bill proposes to amend. That Act created a special branch of the Reserve, known as Section "A" of the Reserve, and it is with that only that this Bill is concerned. Section "A" is composed of men who, on or shortly after passing from the Colours to the Reserve, consent to be liable to be called back to the Colours "for service outside the United Kingdom when warlike operations are in preparation or in progress," to quote from the Statute, in circumstances when general mobilisation is not proclaimed The only executive action necessary to call up Section "A" is the sending of orders to rejoin to the men individually, the fact being reported to Parliament as soon as possible. In return for accepting that liability (which is at present limited by Statute to the first two years of his Reserve service) the man receives 6d. a day additional to his ordinary Reserve Pay. I would like to make it quite clear that the man's acceptance of this special liability is entirely voluntary, and can be revoked at any time by the man on giving three months' notice in writing. That provision remains intact under this Bill.
The maximum strength of Section "A" is prescribed by Statute and is at present fixed at 6,000. The actual strength has of late been limited to 3,000 men, the total strength at the time of the Palestine emergency being 2,920, made up of 2,265 infantrymen and 655 of other arms. Actually there were called up for the Palestine emergency 2,482 men, made up of 2,265 infantrymen and 217 other arms, but for various reasons only 2,364 men were actually sent out. Your Lordships will be quick to perceive that had any other emergency arisen at that time, Section "A" would have been exhausted; and, indeed, were further trouble to take place anywhere to-day those same men who answered the call for Palestine would again be the first to be required. Clearly, therefore, the limitation of 3,000 men must be
278
discarded and the strength of Section "A" increased as far as possible.
It is not considered necessary to disturb the present statutory maximum of 6,000, but experience shows that in order to recruit from the 3,000 up to the 6,000 it is necessary to relax the two-year liability rule. What the Bill does, therefore, is to remove the present two-year limit and substitute a limit of (a) five years, or (b) the termination of the man's original engagement, whichever occurs the earlier. This is what the Bill means when it says "the residue unexpired of the term of the original enlistment." This change will enable men in the later years of their Reserve service to volunteer for Section "A"; it will therefore widen the field of recruitment. It will also enable men who are already in Section "A" to remain there instead of passing automatically to the ordinary Reserve at the conclusion of their second year of Reserve service.
It does not, of course, follow that if this Bill goes through we shall require men enrolling in Section "A" to serve for five years. What the Bill does, however, is to enable a man to undertake a liability of this nature during the first five years of his Reserve service. It would always be open to the War Office to prescribe by regulations some lesser period during which it would accept the man's offer to be liable. If, therefore, men come forward to undertake the Section "A" liability in sufficient numbers, as we think they will, to enable the strength of the section to be maintained, it will always be possible that the liability shall, for practical purposes, be reduced to one, two or three years after the termination of Colour service, if and as necessary. I would only conclude by saying that our experience is that a number of men who now undertake two years' Section "A" service would, if they were allowed to, accept a longer period of liability, and I would again remind your Lordships that the statutory provision in the 1898 Act, that a man can cancel his liability on giving three months' notice, is left undisturbed. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal).
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

REGENCY BILL.
Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments and passed, and returned to the Commons.

FIRE BRIGADE SERVICES IN WAR TIME.
VISCOUNT MERSEY VISCOUNT MERSEY rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are proposing to adopt any methods for expanding or supplementing the existing material and personnel of the fire brigade services in large towns to deal with outbreaks of fire that might be caused by enemy action; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I do not propose to detain your Lordships for more than a very few minutes at this hour. I put this Question down some weeks ago because I thought it was a matter of definite public importance and one in which the civic populations ought to be instructed. I have deferred it until to-day merely in order to meet the convenience of the Department concerned. I do not think it is at all necessary to emphasise the danger of fire. I think it is recognised that fire is the greatest danger in an enemy attack. As I heard someone say, extremely appositely, the other day, gas does not generate gas, but fire generates fire and does not, like gas, have to bring its own fuel from overseas.
In view of the very great damage which might be started by fire, a Departmental Committee, as your Lordships are possibly aware, sat under the chairmanship of Lord Riverdale nearly two years ago. They made a number of useful suggestions, which appear to me, at any rate, to cover nearly the whole ground. The object of my question to the noble Marquess to-night is principally to know to what extent the Government are prepared to adopt those recommendations and whether the necessary items, particularly the Exchequer grant, the provisions for expanding the personnel and the system of Government control of the fire brigades—which, as your Lordships know, are at present under the local authorities—are to be adopted. Anyone reading the account in "Pepys" of the Great Fire, a most lively and interesting account, is struck by the tremendous need for housebreaking. The King and the Duke of York
280
rode through the streets telling the people to pull down their houses, and apparently in all the churches hooks were hung up with which they pulled down the houses in danger. It is really a case of proximus ardet Ucalegon: the thing to do is to stop the next man from having his house on firs. Is housebreaking being considered?
There is also salvage, which is a great opportunity—for one can compare even those days with these—for thieving. Are any provisions contemplated for salvage services? Then one has to look at the difference of our streets from those in the large Continental capitals. There are no boulevards here as there are in Paris and Berlin, and we have our streets full of electric mains, telephone cables, sewage pipes, water mains and gas mains, all of which could be damaged, so that further fires would be set up and water wasted. Is that being taken into consideration? Then there is the necessity for short-circuiting some of the big water mains. These may seem minor things, but they would not be minor things at all if fire arose. One sees from the Press, which I follow in this connection, that a good deal is being done. Almost every day there are little paragraphs saying that fire brigades here and there are making new experiments. Can the noble Marquess say that the Government are really getting on with the unification of the fire services? I mean by unification their standardisation throughout the country.
There is also the question of inhabitants in the streets. One knows what a tremendous nuisance people who have nothing to do are in an emergency. There was the case of the Crystal Palace the other day: a great many of the essential services were, I believe, blocked by the lookers-on. Even when there is a wedding in a large street, when everybody is in a good temper, you cannot get through. Fire-fighting is of course a very technical business and it is essential, as I see is recommended in the Committee's Report, that you should not have, on the lists of people who are going to be made use of to supplement the personnel, people who are already on a list for supplementing some other service, such as the ambulance or police services or the Territorials. The responsibility is, of course, on the local authorities, and I understand—at least, I hope—that the Exchequer is going to give them some form of grant in aid. I think

281
those are the only points which are not mentioned in the Departmental Committee's Report. One speaks, of course, largely of London, but what covers London covers also the provincial services. If the noble Marquess can tell us that he is able to lay some form of Paper, whether here or in another place, and within some reasonable time, I shall be quite satisfied. I beg to move.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: My Lords, I feel sure that you will all agree with me that the noble Viscount has done a public service in bringing this matter to the attention of your Lordships' House, because it is quite obvious that the problem is of the very gravest importance in any time of war. The Government recognised its importance some time ago when it set up the Riverdale Committee, to which reference has already been made. I will only say that I propose to give the noble Viscount a fairly full answer, but that I do not think that he can ask me to give an answer about the possibility of producing an increased Salvage Corps, which, as he knows, is now only a private organisation, run, I think, by the insurance companies, or indeed that I could give him any answer about any proposals there may be for regulating crowds in time of fire. That is clearly the province of the police, and not of the fire brigade.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: I am afraid I did not make myself clear. What I meant to ask was whether instructions might be given to the civil population as to what they should do in case of large fires.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: No doubt those instructions would naturally be given, but not by the fire brigade themselves, with which this Motion is primarily concerned. Of course, the problem of the incendiary bomb and its results is probably the major problem of air attack. How you are going to deal with that is the first thing that you will have to decide, because the solution of the problems of gas and high explosives mainly depends on the maintenance of the morale of the population. But, as my noble friend has said, fire has to do with physical things and has physical causes. The only point I would like finally to make in prefacing my remarks is this. The fire caused by an incendiary bomb is not at all different
282
from any other form of fire. There seems to be some feeling among some people in this country that the fire of the incendiary bomb is different in kind from any other kind of fire. That is not so. Apart from the bomb itself, clearly the measures one has to take to destroy the fire it causes are precisely the same as those one would have to take to destroy any other kind of fire.
The problem, as we see it, is simply this, that in all large towns the highly-organised fire brigades are concentrated in a limited number of stations, and based, quite rightly, on the principle that there will not be more than two or at the very most three, major fires at the same time. Now in war time, with incendiary bombs being dropped, that hypothesis is no longer valid. Any organisation that is set up will have to be prepared to deal with a great number of fires, any one of which conflagrations might potentially be of the very greatest danger unless it is tackled almost immediately. Therefore the problem, as the Government see it, is that the dispersal of personnel and apparatus is the major necessity in fighting fires in war time—the necessity of having plenty of men and much apparatus to be able to get to the fire quickly before it reaches serious proportions. If that is the problem, it must be solved clearly in three ways. It has to be solved by an increase of apparatus, by an increase of personnel to use the apparatus, and, as my noble friend pointed out, by an augmentation, wherever possible, of existing water supplies.
I am going to say a little about the increase of apparatus in a few moments, but I should like to make it absolutely clear now that any increase in apparatus must be dependent upon an increase of personnel who are able to use it. There is no conceivable point in spending vast sums, or any sums, on apparatus if there is no one who is capable of understanding its use. The only people at present who can take advantage of any increase in apparatus are the ordinary firemen, or retired firemen, who are not very many in number, but who no doubt would respond to any call on their services, should emergency come. It is therefore clearly necessary that an auxiliary firemen's service should be part of every large city's fire brigade organisation; that is to say, that it is necessary to have a large number of people who

283
are what might be called part-time firemen, but who would receive a full course of training in fire fighting during peace time, and who would also, again in peace time, be available to assist the regular brigade in order to gain experience. That is the first essential to meet the problem that the noble Viscount has put. The idea of part-time firemen is not very familiar in cities like London, but it is familiar in many parts of the country, and undoubtedly that system will have to play a very large part in any measures that we take to avert the danger of fire. May I express my confidence, and the Government's confidence, that there will be people available in great numbers who will be prepared to undergo this training, and in time of emergency to undertake this dangerous—for it will be dangerous—but vital work.
Well, if the establishment of the auxiliary personnel is the first essential, the second essential is quite clearly a very large increase in the number of fire-fighting appliances available. Those appliances may be in several categories. There is first of all the heavy fire-fighting apparatus, which is absolutely necessary for very large fires, and absolutely necessary for relaying water over long distances. The Government, I confess, take the matter of increasing the supply of these very heavy fire-fighting appliances very seriously indeed. They quite agree with the noble Viscount that it is essential that the number of these appliances should be multiplied very considerably. It is obviously not possible for me to give any definite figure of what the Government have in mind over so diverse an area as England and Scotland, but I assure the noble Viscount that the Government think that these appliances should be multiplied very considerably; I have not got any idea merely of doubling them in my mind. That is the first essential—heavy appliances.
The second essential, it seems to us, is that a system of patrols should be set up, so that every street would be patrolled at more or less regular intervals all through the emergency by lighter appliances more capable of getting over debris, more capable of getting about when bombs are falling, and which would be capable of striking at the root of a fire before it really got away. I ask the noble Viscount to believe that when I
284
say every street in the large cities should be patrolled at regular intervals, that is no figure of speech, but is a genuine sign of the magnitude of the task which the Government feel should be undertaken. Finally, we feel it is necessary to have a number of fire posts in addition to the patrol who would watch for fires in empty houses, where there would be no people to give warning, and watch for fires at the back of houses and so on, and who would be armed with hand appliances which would be of the greatest assistance to householders themselves in getting at the fire before it has reached dangerous proportions. Therefore your Lordships will realise that the Government have taken this matter very seriously in hand. In order to help local authorities, on whom everything in the last resort will depend, to get ahead with this scheme as soon as possible, the Government are undertaking to provide approved types of appliances with hose and equipment up to a proportion of the local authorities' requirements under their approved local emergency scheme. Furthermore, provision will, I understand, be made for the necessary financial adjustment.
In conclusion, I come to the question raised by my noble friend of the augmentation of water supply. We have to face a situation where it may be that owing to the action of high explosives the water mains are out of action, and furthermore, we have to face the possibility that even if the mains are not put out of use by enemy action, in any case there will not be enough water to go round. The Government feel that that problem can only be solved by making available as many sources of extra water supply as possible by the use of long distance pumping from rivers, reservoirs and so on. A great deal can be done in that way. I would also say to the noble Viscount that a very great deal can be done by skilled people with very little water. The man who knows how to use water can do a great deal with a very few gallons. I think your Lordships will agree that the problem we are trying to face is essentially one of men and of materials and that the Government have got a very practical scheme for dealing with it. It might be said—the noble Viscount did not say it—that this scheme should have been produced earlier.
LORD MOTTISTONE: Hear, hear.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: The answer to that is, very simply, that it would have been perfectly easy to produce a paper scheme to satisfy my noble friend who said "Hear, hear," but it is much better to have waited a little longer and to have produced a scheme drawn up in consultation with experienced firemen which the Government are convinced will work, and work well. Steps are now in train to enable local authorities to take advantage of this scheme straight away, and, as your Lordships probably know, a circular is being sent out this evening to all local authorities and all other bodies who may be interested describing the scheme and making, in very much greater detail, the statement I have made to your Lordships. I propose to put that circular in the Printed Paper Office, where it will be available to all your Lordships. In view of that, I hope very much, as I have given the noble Viscount a very full reply, he will not find it necessary to press his Motion.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Marquess for what he has said. I think he has covered nearly all the points I raised. There was one that perhaps did not seem as rosy as it might, and that was the reserve fire brigade men. From what little experience I have of watching fires, fire-fighting is a pretty difficult job. You want men at the top of their physical powers. Generally they have been sailors, I believe, and I am not quite certain that men who have been out of training for five or six years will be able to do everything that is physically expected of them
286
when the need arises. The other point was in reference to house-breaking. There ought certainly to be some corps available of ordinary masons and their mates who can deal with the house-breaking which will certainly be necessary. Again, I go back to the example of the Great Fire. The whole trouble of the Lord Mayor of the day was to get people to pull down houses in time and thus keep the fire from spreading.
THE MARQUESS OF DUFFERIN AND AVA: I should have said that that point has not been overlooked by the Government.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: In view of what the noble Marquess has said regarding the paper which he is placing in the Printed Paper Office, I would ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE ACT (AMENDMENT) BILL. [H.L.]
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the description of the persons with whom arrangements may be made under the National Health Insurance Act, 1936, for the dispensing of medicines, and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Viscount Gage.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.

Preamble
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificate from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:—

Sheppey Water [H.L.],

National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty [H.L.].

The same was ordered to lie on the Table.

SHEFFIELD GAS (No. 2) ORDER, 1936.
BARNSLEY CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
WALTHAM HOLY CROSS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Special Order and Bills, namely:

L. Ellenborough,

L. Abinger,

L. Lawrence,

L. Wolverton,

L. Marks (Chairman):

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Special Order and Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Special Order and Bills.

WESSEX ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.] FOLKESTONE PIER AND LIFT BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, namely:

E. Airlie (Chairman),

E. Cawdor,

L. Teynham,

L. Monkswell,

L. Rowallan:

288
Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL. [H.L.]
KINGSBRIDGE AND SALCOMBE WATER BOARD BILL. [H.L.]
CANVEY ISLAND URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
TAUNTON CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
ILFORD CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
EAST ANGLESEY GAS BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, namely:

E. Hardwicke,

E. Iddesleigh,

L. Manners,

L. Askwith (Chairman),

L. Ailwyn:

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 9th of March next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.
BURGESS HILL WATER BILL. [H.L.]
BARNET DISTRICT GAS AND WATER BILL. [H.L.]
MANSFIELD DISTRICT TRACTION BILL. [H.L.]
EASTBOURNE EXTENSION BILL. [H.L.]
BERKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
COULSDON AND PURLEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bills, namely:

289

V. Bridport,

V. Chelmsford,

L. Sinclair,

L. Dorchester,

L. Milne (Chairman):

Agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly. The Committee to meet on Tuesday, the 9th of March next, at eleven o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bills to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bills.
MARGATE, BROADSTAIRS AND DISTRICT ELECTRICITY BILL. [H.L.]
RICKMANSWORTH AND UXBRIDGE VALLEY WATER BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.

DRAFT UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (ADDITIONAL DAYS AND WAITING PERIOD) ORDER, 1937.
Order to be made by the Minister of Labour under the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

DOVER ELECTRICITY (EXTENSION) ORDER, 1937.
Special Order in respect of part of the borough of Dover in the county of Kent:
Laid before the House (pursuant to Act) for affirmative Resolution and referred to the Special Orders Committee.

ALLOA AND DISTRICT GAS ORDER, 1937
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order; that they have considered an addition proposed by the Board of Trade and recommend its adoption to the House; and that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
PORTSMOUTH AND GOSPORT GAS ORDER, 1937.
Report from the Special Orders Committee, That no Petition has been presented praying to be heard against the Special Order, and that there is nothing in this Order to which they think it necessary to call the attention of the House: Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.