I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This is the first of a series of new Clauses, arising out of the consideration of the Bill in Standing Committee, which are designed to meet assurances given in the Standing Committee as a result of the discussions that took place there. I think I may be allowed to say that, on Second Reading, I said that it was the desire of the Government, particularly on a Bill of this kind, to carry it through the Committee and remaining stages in full consultation with the House and with hon. Members, particularly with mining hon. Members. I think it is the fact that there has been a very great deal of constructive consultation, and I should like to express my appreciation to hon. Members who cooperated in it.

The first new Clause, and, indeed, the one that follows, is technical, dealing with the definition of a mine, and in this Clause we have sought to make a definition which is more satisfactory than the law has been in the past. The difficulty with the law in the past was that there was a certain amount of what might be called "fringe" activity in mines and quarries, in which it was impossible to say whether the activity fell within mining legislation or came under the Factories Acts. I am sure that the House would consider that unsatisfactory, and would want to alter it.

The first stage of doing so is to adopt the proposal in this Clause, in which the definition of mines and quarries depends entirely on the fact whether people are employed underground in getting the mineral or not. That is the basis of the definition in this Clause.

I should like to endorse what the Minister has said about consultation throughout the Committee stage. I think the consultations have been extremely fruitful. We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for putting down this new Clause, and we accept it.

As one who was not a member of the Standing Committee, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether an opencast mine is a mine or a quarry?

It is a quarry.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

In spite of the improvement which is being made by the Clause which the House has just passed, there is a certain range of what we may call "fringe" activities for which, even with the improved definition, it would remain uncertain whether they were, in fact, occupations and processes coming under mining law or under the Factories Acts. At first sight it is difficult to understand why that is so, but I think I can give the House an example.

4.0 p.m.

There are certain processes connected with the crushing of stone which are purely mining or quarrying activities, but when tar or other material is added to the stone, that has been sometimes held in the past to be a factory activity. It is absurd when two things are done by substantially the same plant in substantially the same building that it should not be possible to decide clearly which they should be, rather than let them oscillate and during one period of the year be under the Mines Acts and during another period of the year be under the Factories Acts. It is therefore provided in the proposed new Clause that the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Fuel and Power should consult together about such processes and have power to decide the matter by means of an order.

I thank my right hon. Friend for endeavouring to clarify this point which I put to him before the Bill passed its Second Reading. I should like a little further clarification on one aspect of the matter.

Every colliery has a maintenance staff at the pit-head to deal with the mechanical and electrical equipment used in the pit. On whom will the responsibility devolve for periodical inspection of the mechanical and electrical equipment in workshops of that kind? Will it be an inspector mines, responsible for health and safety, or a factory inspector under the Factories Acts?

That matter would come under a mines inspector.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in subsection (5, a), after operations," to insert:

"and the said section one hundred and eight shall not apply to any works of engineering construction."

In moving this Amendment, Mr. Speaker, may I deal with the next Amendment, to leave out paragraph (b) of subsection (5)?

It will be very convenient to do so.

The new Clause which has been proposed by the Minister of Fuel and Power makes provision whereby undertakings or premises regarded as part of a mine or quarry shall be excluded from the Factories Acts. On this side of the House we realise the importance of that provision and we have no objection to what is set out in the Clause.

The Clause goes on to say that in certain circumstances the Minister may by order arrange that some of the premises may from time to time be brought either under the Factories Acts or under the Bill. That will depend upon circumstances. The proposed new Clause says that if they come under the Bill, Sections 107 and 108 of the Factories Act, 1937, shall apply. Up to this stage we quite agree with the general purpose of the new Clause.

We are very surprised that at the end it states:

"The said section one hundred and eight shall not apply to any works of engineering construction undertaken at a mine (whether above or below ground) or at a quarry."

We are very concerned about the position of engineering constructional works at the surface, which may be similar in character to those in any town far away from the mining industry. The men employed may have been transferred to the undertaking from a city or town and may not be miners in the proper sense of the word. Therefore, they come within the provisions of Section 108 of the Factories Act, 1937, many of the provisions of which have not yet been put into operation. I am referring to surface engineering, and the Bill cannot hope to deal adequately with the safeguards which apply to men working in those circumstances.

What puzzles us is why the Clause should stipulate that Section 108 shall not apply to constructional engineering. As it is not part of a mine or quarry, it must come under the Factories Acts, but why does the new Clause state that Section 108 shall not apply in those circumstances? The constructional engineering regulations cover such things as scaffolds constructed with more than three tiers. They say that no trestles shall be erected on a scaffold and that the platform has to be of a certain height and width. The Bill cannot hope to deal with that aspect of these matters. It seems that people engaged in constructional engineering will remain outside Section 108, and that will place them in a difficult position, because they will get no protection. What is the intention of the Government in saying that Section 108 shall be excluded?

I beg to second the Amendment.

I think I can reassure the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) on this point, which incidentally is a fresh point to be taken on the Bill There has been no change in regard to this provision since the Committee stage and there is no change in the practice.

In the past, all inspection of engineering works has been carried out by inspectors who were mining engineers and whom we consider are competent to carry out the inspections and to apply the law. In practice, there will be no change, but in substance it was considered desirable to make a change.

Under the old law as it would be applied under the Bill, the Factories Acts regulations might well be regarded as applicable to surface operations and to quarries, but it is clearly not the intention of anybody concerned, nor of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment to the proposed new Clause, that these operations should come under factory law. The line of demarcation had to be made somewhere and the best place was considered to be subsection (5, b) of the proposed new Clause. We are convinced that this is the best method of procedure to continue the existing practice, while giving it a more legal and proper framework.

I should like to have the main question cleared up. There are men producing stone for road-making and they would come under the Bill. There are men engaged on the quarryside who find the stone and there are men engaged in tar manufacture. How is the Bill to apply to the quarrymen who are getting the stone, the men who are handling the stone, and the men who are producing tarmac?

I do not know whether I rightly understood what the Parliamentary Secretary said, but if I did, I do not think that he quite answered the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) who moved the Amendment. He was concerned about engineering construction on the surface in respect of which the workmen ought to have protection, and we think that that protection ought to be given under the Factories Act. As we understand the Clause, that protection would not be given. Surely it is desirable that it should be given. Can the Parliamentary Secretary add a little in explanation?

One can expect that in the future far more constructive engineering will take place in colliery yards than hitherto, and I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Finch) has made a very important point indeed. I do not take as an example what has happened in the past, but what one can expect to happen in the future, and I agree that some real measure of protection, such as that quoted by my hon. Friend under the Factories Act, should be put into operation.

I think that there is a real misunderstanding here, although I do not think that there is any difference of purpose. I want to make it quite clear that we desire that works of engineering construction should come under full and proper control. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) that in future such works may be more ambitious—we hope they will be—and that therefore it is more important that they should be brought under proper control.

It happens that I was concerned with the passage through this House of the Factories Act, and I agree that although there was an advance made on the previous provisions, the provisions in regard to engineering construction in the Factories Act are very and necessarily wide because they have to deal with works of engineering construction which differ enormously in the different sections of the industry.

I think the House will appreciate that as long as we get regulations and proper provisions for dealing with engineering construction, it would be better that those regulations should deal, not with all phases of engineering construction, but particularly with the engineering works that take place at collieries. That we have power to do under the Bill, and that is what we propose to do. I think that we shall get better regulations, and better enforcement, governing engineering construction under the Mines and Quarries Bill than under the old Factories Act.

I will now deal with the point raised by the hon. Gentleman about the men who would be in these fringe industries. I explained earlier that it was our purpose to enable us, in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, to decide which was the best method for dealing with those fringe industries. I should not like to say exactly what will happen, but the way in which it will be decided will be by the Ministers entering into consultation with the industries and with the trade unions and then making an order, which I hope will be acceptable.

The Minister's explanation has really strengthened our Amendment. The fact remains that the Clause says:

"the said section one hundred and eight shall not apply to any works of engineering construction undertaken at a mine (whether above or below ground) or at a quarry."

We are concerned with works of engineering construction on the surface, and we contend that Section 108 of the Factories Act should apply in those circumstances. That Act contains safeguards peculiar to constructional engineering, and the same safeguards cannot be got under the Mines and Quarries Bill. I have already cited ladders and scaffolds, and could go on giving other examples. I repeat that this new Clause stipulates that Section 108 shall not apply, and, therefore, whatever the intentions of the right hon. Gentleman may be, and whatever the practice has been in the past, we must insist upon the Amendment.

Will the Minister explain the assurance which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, Central (Mr. Awbery) about quarries so as to include the kind of manufacturing process which is so common in the slate-quarrying districts, particularly in Wales? I raised the matter in Committee when the right hon. Gentleman was, I think, quite seized of its importance, and when he responded quite sympathetically. I wonder whether he could now add to what he said in reply to my hon. Friend by giving an assurance that he will use this enabling power to decide whether the manufacturing sheds, so-called, which trim and condition the stone, quarried perhaps at some distance from those sheds, should or should not come within the provisions of the Factories Act, 1937.

If I understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he said that before he decided whether a certain aspect of quarrying bordering on manufacturing should come within the Bill, his Department would examine the matter. I followed the right hon. Gentleman's assurances as far as the point made by my hon. Friend was concerned, and I am only anxious that the slate quarry unions, who are interested in the point, should know that it includes their members.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This was a subject which we discussed at great length in Committee. It is an interesting and a rather peculiar subject, because, although its very importance is evidenced by the Section dealing with it in the old Act, it is not a Section which has been very much used. There have been very few references, perhaps merely by the fact that the power of reference is there, but we know that it is important. We want to make sure that we can provide a convenient, competent and speedy method of resolving any of these questions.

The Clause gives effect to the point much stressed in Committee, which was that we ought to have a competent panel ready which could be drawn upon and could come into operation speedily, and which is composed of thoroughly competent people in mining matters. This Clause does that.

I notice that there is still a further point which hon. Gentlemen have in mind about the actual method of selection from the panel,, and perhaps the House will allow me to say that I appreciate the point made, and that I am prepared to meet it in principle It will be necessary to take some action on the matter in another place, and it will also be necessary to provide an independent person to choose members of the panel.

This is a very important Clause, because many parts of the mine come within the purview of these tribunals. The tribunals will have to decide disputes on such matters as the construction and maintenance of roads, transport rules, the height and width of travel roads, winding and haulage apparatus, support rules, ventilation, permitted lights, electricity and electrical apparatus, danger from gas and water, safe methods of working, and safe access to working places. The tribunal has to decide any dispute corning before it between the manager and the inspector in relation to the matters mentioned in the Clause.

I have never understood that a lawyer was able to pick his own judge. He has to take his case before the judge appointed by someone else, he cannot object to him, and he has to plead his case in front of that judge. If there should be a dispute between the manager and the inspector about, say, safe methods of working or safe places in which to work, the manager, if he does not like one particular expert on the panel which the Minister will appoint, can say, "I am not having him. I shall go to the Lord Chancellor to try to get someone else." If one goes to the Lord Chancellor the decision is delayed. Here we are quite definite that we want to keep the Lord Chancellor out of it.

Whoever the expert is who is picked from the panel of experts appointed by the Minister for each district, we think that he should be the judge to try the dispute—whether or not the inspector or the manager likes him. If we leave it to the Lord Chancellor, he may put two names in a hat and draw one out—as we used to do in the old days of the minimum wage. We shall have delay from the time of the service of notice. They will argue as to who shall be the referee. They will disagree. The point will come to London and months will elapse before we get a decision on a vital matter.

We therefore ask the Minister for a definite assurance—otherwise we must divide on this Clause—that if he intends to amend the Clause in another place, it shall be to the effect that the expert picked shall be the judge and that we shall not have these squabbles between manager and inspector after notice has been given as to who shall try the case. I should like to ask the Minister to give us some assurance on these matters. May I now move my Amendment, Mr. Speaker?

When the Clause has been read a Second time, I shall call the Amendment to which, I understand, the hon. Member has addressed himself.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in subsection (2), after the first "to," insert:

"a person or persons selected in a manner to be prescribed from amongst the members of that one of the panels of persons appointed by the Minister under this section which is appropriate to the circumstances of the case."

I beg to second the Amendment.

I agree that we should get away from this process of two of them choosing who shall be appointed from the panel. We are, however, up against a little difficulty. The Minister can hardly choose, because, formally speaking, the Minister, through his inspectors, is one of the parties to the dispute. I think that we can devise another method of choosing independently from among a panel. I can definitely give the assurance that we shall bring forward proposals in another place to meet that point.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The Committee will probably prefer me to state this quite simply. We had a great deal of discussion as to what the actual figure should be. We started off some distance apart and eventually came to an agreement which was somewhere about halfway.

I am sorry that I must disagree completely about the height mentioned in this new Clause. It is quite true that the Minister has come some distance towards meeting us, but I think that he should be reminded, with respect, that he has only come that distance as a result of a push from behind. If we had not in Committee attempted to substitute 6 ft. for 5 ft. we should not have got what is now in the new Clause.

Because of my experience of low roadways I am an ardent advocate of road ways 6 ft. high. The height in years gone by was 3 ft. We had to fight every inch of the way to get it to 4 ft. and now we have tried to get what we consider to be the reasonable height of 6 ft. minimum. While I am well aware that this new Clause, which lays down that the roadways shall be 5 ft. 6 ins., will pass the Report stage and be incorporated in the Bill I prophesy that within the next few years the Minister of Fuel and Power, either by regulation or by amending legislation, will have to substitute the figure six. As an old collier will tell the Committee why.

In many British coalfields we are now winning for the nation coal from seams as low as 22 ins., 24 ins. and 36 ins. Unless regulations or legislation make it compulsory to heighten the roadways, and particularly the travelling roadways, those low seams will mean low travelling roads.

Another reason we should insist on a height of 6 ft. is ventilation. Ventilation is of paramount importance to the man at the coal face and to the men working in the pit. We are now taking what in my pit language we call "greater takes." We are travelling longer distances inbye. We therefore have to see that the roadways not only make it possible for men to travel in comfort but that the roadways themselves take the volume of air necessary to render obnoxious gases less dangerous.

4.30 p.m.

Another factor is that men who are injured at the coalface have to be carried along those roadways to the pit bottom. If the height of the roadway is only 5 ft. 6 ins, it will be extremely difficult for the stretcher bearers to carry those men along the roadway. It is all very well for the non-mining man to say that 5 ft. 6 ins. is high enough. It is all very well for people who do not live in mining areas to say that 5 ft. 6 ins. is sufficiently high for a roadway. But be it remembered that in many of our seams today, particularly in north-east and north-west Lancashire, the gradients are one in three, one in five and one in seven. I know that the Minister, in his heart of hearts, appreciates what it means to carry a stretcher bearing a man weighing 10, 11 or 12 stone along a low roadway to the pit bottom; I know he appreciates the difficulty which these men experience when travelling along gradients of that kind.

True, there has been some common agreement behind the scenes, and I do not wish to be disloyal, but I do wish to speak according to my convictions. Speaking from my experience, it is a mistake to fix the height of a roadway at 5 ft. 6 ins. from the point of view of the comfort of the men and of getting an injured workman to the pit bottom and then to the surface as quickly as possible. While it may be true that the height mentioned in this new Clause has been agreed—and, as I say, I have no desire to be disloyal—I wish to express my personal opinion that the time has come in mining today when our roadways should be sufficiently high and wide not only to enable coal and men to be conveyed but to provide adequate ventilation to the coalface.

I should like to refer to a report which appeared in a newspaper a fortnight ago. Be it remembered that we are dealing with modern mining. Here is a report of an injured workman on the North-East Coast. He was trapped with a colleague by a 2 cwt. 5 ft. long piece of rock. He was extricated suffering from severe spinal injuries, and the roadway was so low that he had to be strapped to a shovel and dragged one mile from the place of the accident to the pit bottom. This is 1954, and we should have travelled a long way from those conditions.

There are several reasons why I say that 5 ft. 6 ins. is too low. First of all, there is the comfort of the men to be considered. These men are now working in 22-in. seams, and when a man has been cramped up under a roof 22 ins. high for 7½ hours, he does not want to experience further physical discomfort created by a low roadway. Secondly, it is of paramount importance to have sufficiently high roadways for ventilation purposes. I am convinced that a height of 5 ft. 6 ins. is inadequate for the comfort of men engaged in modern mining.

The Minister should reconsider the position of roadways in general. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown) has had almost as much experience underground as I have—perhaps he has had more—but I have seen conditions underground change enormously since I started working in the mines 60 years ago. Even as far back as 1887 there was a special provision to safeguard the minimum height of roadways, not entirely in the interests of the men, although it was certainly of benefit to the men. This provision was introduced in the interests of the horse. The law provided for a sufficient height in roadways along which horses travelled to enable the horses to pass without the possibility of the harness or the horse touching the roof. Horses of 14 or 14½ hands—with the collar which was worn underground they would be about 15 hands—required six feet of height to enable them to pass without rubbing.

A manager can be penalised if he allows a horse to rub, but it is possible for a man not only to rub as he passes but to bump his head severely. Many miners are now taller than their predecessors were. I belong to a generation of colliers who very seldom reach the stature of six feet, but colliers today are often six feet high. The main roadway of a pit may be a mile long, and if a height of only 5 ft. 6 ins, is allowed many men will have to stoop all the way. Mechanically, another six inches does not matter much to the industry, but to expect a man to stoop to save six inches of height is really improper in these days.

I expect much from this Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Ince has called attention to the changes taking place in the industry. It is not just a question of the size of the tubs or the height of the men; it is a question of getting sufficient ventilation, and the mines will not be made safe unless the roadways are far more commodious than is proposed in this new Clause. We shall not get good mining unless we have the largest possible airways. Do not let us tie both hands and feet of mining progress by accepting 5 ft. 6 ins. as a sufficient height. I hope the Minister will withdraw this proposal and substitute a height of 6 ft.

I hope it will not be thought that because some of us have accepted this compromise we are less interested in the heights of roads than those who are asking for a height of 6 ft. What actually happened was this. We on these benches defeated the Minister in Committee when the Minister had a height of 5 ft. in the Clause. We argued that it should be 6 ft.—

May I point out that I had the most unfortunate experience, while in the Chair, of having to give my vote in favour of the Minister.

I know that the Chairman was in an invidious position. We arrived at a compromise of 5 ft. 6 ins. A height of 5 ft. 6 ins. is a tremendous advance on the provisions of the 1911 Act, and it means that every new travelling road will have to be driven in its initial stages at a height of 6 ft. 6 ins. to 7 ft. because it has got to be 5 ft. 6 ins. high after all the pressure has been put upon the road.

I hope that the Chief Inspector of Mines has noted the distressing details of the accident which occurred in Northumberland, when a man who sustained a spinal injury had to be dragged on a shovel for a mile. That sort of thing will not happen with a 5 ft. 6 in. roadway. One cannot expect to have a 5 ft. 6 in. high road on the long wall face, when the seam is only 2 ft. 9 ins. One can expect that height only in the roads leading up to the seam, and not in the roads where the men are working. If a man is injured when working a 1 ft. 9 in. seam, he may have to be dragged on a shovel for about 50 yards to the mother-gate.

I believe that we ought to accept the Clause as a compromise. We should have liked to get a height of 6 ft., but we have failed. We are now getting a height half way between the Minister's former idea and our own. Old trade unionists know that when they went to the office to argue for a tonnage price, and the price was raised half way to what they wanted, they thought they were getting a good settlement. The Clause represents a considerable advance upon the 1911 Act, and provides for a height of 5 ft. 6 ins. instead of 5 ft., as was originally proposed. In all the circumstances, I think we should accept it.

I know that my hon. Friends have spent a great deal of time considering this question in Committee, and that some of them agree to the compromise which is now being put forward, but I hope that if the compromise is agreed to it will not be regarded as indicating what will be carried out in practice. It is correct to say that this provision offers something much better than was provided by the old Act, but I was never able to see very much correspondence between the provisions of a statute and the conditions in a pit. What really matters is what is carried out in the pit. We say that common roadways shall be no less than 5 ft. 6 ins. in height. In most cases we expect them to be more.

Anyone with any experience of walking long distances underground knows very well that to do so in a cramped position is not only exceedingly fatiguing, but exceedingly bad for breathing. Anyone who has seen old men walking up roadways in pits, with their chins dug into their chests, knows that it is the worst possible posture for breathing, especially when the air itself is bad. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance that the statutory minimum is not an indication of future colliery practice. I would call my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that even with this height of 5 ft. 6 ins. certain roadways can be exempted by the inspector. Inspectors used to exempt miles and miles of roadway from the necessity of being supported under the Coal Mines Act.

One of the difficulties about the Bill, and especially about this Clause, is that it does not pay sufficient attention to the fact that the future administration of the pits will be a domestic concern. These inspectors are creatures of the Minister. The Board itself is almost a creature of the Minister. In those circumstances we expect that the internal administration of the pits will be different from what it has been hitherto. Up to now it has been necessary to introduce a statute, because only in that way could the law be made to apply to a colliery owner who made profits out of cheating the law. We hope that the situation will now be different. It is now very much more a matter of domestic administration. I should run to the Aye Lobby with enthusiasm if I thought that this 5 ft. 6 ins. had reference to future colliery practice, which I hope will be very much better than it has been in the past.

I am very pleased that this discussion has taken place. We have been given some information that we did not have before. We all know that the question of the height of roadways is a matter of cost, and it is because of that fact that, during the Committee stage, the height for which the miners' representatives were asking was not agreed to. To get the Bill through as quickly as possible the miners' representatives agreed to a compromise, but why should we compromise in considering human beings when we will not do so in the case of animals which have to work down mines?

On a point of order. I wish my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) would get this matter in its proper perspective. We did not compromise. If there has been any compromise—

That is not a point of order.

On a point of order. Is it right that one hon. Member should refer to others as having compromised the situation? We have done nothing of the kind?

That is not a point of order.

I am sorry if people are annoyed because I have risen to speak. Other hon. Members can do so as well, and can be listened to quite calmly and serenely. I did not imply that the representatives of the miners agreed to a compromise during the Committee stage. They put their case. I am glad that they ventilated their attitude, because it should be made known that miners are not satisfied with a height of 5 ft. 6 ins.

What I was trying to say is that for years past there has been an attitude in the mining industry that there must be sufficient height for tubs to travel along the roads, and it has always been agreed that the roadways should be sufficiently high for animals employed in the pits. But there has always been a tendency to compromise in the case of the ordinary human being working in the pit and producing the coal. Although he may have one, or even two miles to walk, it has not been considered necessary to provide a roadway of such a height that he can travel without stooping. The Clause still preserves the compromise, but there is a difference of only six inches between the Minister and my hon. Friends. Could not the Minister add on that six inches and so give real satisfaction to the miners?

I was not a member of the Committee which considered the Bill, but I can guarantee that the minds of the officials who are conducting mining operations today are mainly concerned with the question of £ s. d. A height of 6 ft. could be provided as well as a height of 5 ft. 6 ins., but it is a matter of cost, for the greater the height the greater the cost. I am very pleased the matter has been ventilated, to indicate to the country that the miners who travel for miles in the pits along roadways whose roofs are too low cannot be satisfied even with this new provision, the purpose of which is to try to get coal a little cheaper.

I want to put my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay) right, and I do not want to attack the Standing Committee. I was out of order just now in trying to correct my hon. Friend, but now I would tell him frankly that there was no question of compromise here. It was the Minister or one of his colleagues who brought the question of cost into our debates on the Bill. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) I am not happy about the compromise, but it is not the Standing Committee's compromise. I said in Committee, and I say here on the Floor of the House, that I shall not be satisfied until the height is 6 ft. It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend said, that it is a matter of cost, but I do not accept all that my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) said.

As I and various hon. Members said in Committee, once the roadway is made there will not have to be spent on it one penny in five years' time. That, anyway, will be true of the roadways in a considerable number of the mines. In a large number, where there is a rock top and a rock floor, once the roadway is made it will remain for a considerable period. What is more, on such roadways, free from bottlenecks and falls, there is a compensation gained in output that is quite marvellous.

I beg the Minister yet again to give us the extra 6 ins. I do not want to go into the question of the 22-in. seams. I have been down to one; indeed it was a little more than that; but for a great number of years it was my privilege to work at fairly thick seams. We have, fortunately, in South Yorkshire some very thick seams, but we have structural movement there. I can appreciate the concern of the right hon. Gentleman and his advisers and of the Coal Board with cost. Side movement and movement of floor and roof is much quicker in thick than in thin seams, and if the movement were the same all over the coalfields we should indeed have a problem.

It is a difficulty the Coal Board has to bear. However, we cannot disregard it. Although we are Members of Parliament, as ex-miners we are still part and parcel of the industry, and we are not less so because we are in Opposition. We have to take into consideration the question of cost because inevitably the cost falls on the consumers. We are concerned not only with the wellbeing of the miners but with other industries and with the consumers, industrial and domestic. If it is not too late to do so, I appeal once more to the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this matter before Third Reading.

This is a subject on which emotions are easily aroused. The arguments that have been put forward now were also put forward in Committee. We have to be practical, and I would remind my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. T. Brown), who was talking about ventilation, that another 6 ins. of height will not be a very decided advantage in ventilation. The people who have travelled the roads of our pits know that to get a minimum height of 5ft. 6 ins. is a great advance. That remains the case although we have heard the arguments in favour of 6 ft. The dimensions of roadways was not mentioned in the 1911 Act except in respect to connecting roads between two shafts. I do not want to prolong the discussion on the new Clause because I want to get the Bill.

So do I.

I would remind my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) that in the coalfields, including those in Scotland, where the mine roadways have roofs 3 ft. and 4 ft. high a gigantic task faces the Coal Board. If there is a prescribed minimum of 5 ft. 6ins. any colliery manager of any sense will construct with a height of 7 ft., for he has to allow for supports. I do not want to repeat what has been said in Committee. I am pleased that we are to have a minimum standard prescribed in the Bill, whereas, hitherto, there has not been one. That is our strongest point, and I leave it at that. We want 6 ft., but I am proud to think that we have gained some ground by getting this concession from the Minister.

I shall not take up much of the time of the House, because I was a Member of the Committee and we considered this matter; and I am quite well aware what this means to the men in the industry. We who have had experience of the industry know that, in the past, miners were subjected to intolerable conditions. Often we arrived at a shaft bottom entirely exhausted. The writing into the Bill of this prescribed minimum will be a great advantage.

There is one question I have to ask. We are talking about 5 ft. 6 ins. or even 6 ft. as being the height of the roof, but we have to remember that the roof has to be covered, and that takes away a certain amount of the height. Does the prescribed minimum height refer to the roof itself or to the distance between the floor and the crossbars and so on supporting the roof? Timbering of the roof is bound to take away from that distance.

It is 5 ft. 6 ins. true clearance under the bars. I have been very well treated by hon. Members, and, therefore, I want to make quite clear my responsibility and that of the Government. It is the Government who must take responsibility for bringing forward these proposals. When we brought forward the original proposal we felt that we were making a considerable advance on what existed in the 1911 Act. It may not have been as far as hon. Members would have liked us to go, and hon. Members pressed us to go further, as, indeed, was their duty. The hon. Member whom I once called the hon. Member for Blyton—the hon. Member for for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton)—pressed the matter very strongly as a good trade unionist because, he said, the demand had to be high. I am in a different position, for I must be a responsible Member of a Government and I cannot move with quite the same freedom as that with which the demands are made. We started with a certain proposition which was an improvement on the 1911 Act. After hearing representations I was able to go further, but I cannot today go further than the figure given in the Clause.

Would the Minister make this point clear? He has said that he cannot go further than 5 ft. 6 ins. I happen to represent a part of the Lanarkshire coalfield where the seams are very thin—probably the thinnest seams worked in Great Britain. We have the lowest roadways. Some of the collieries which have been closed in Lanarkshire would not have been closed had the roadways been made at an adequate height in the first place. The great difficulty in the coalfield at present is that we are not getting the full advantage of mechanisation at the face because of the bottlenecks in transport.

I should be endangering the continued existence of the few remaining collieries in my part of Lanarkshire if I insisted that every roadway in those collieries had to be made at least 5 ft. 6 ins. forthwith. Nevertheless, I appreciate that even in that part of the coalfield many of the roads are already in excess of 5 ft. 6 ins., and I rose because the Minister failed to say that it was his intention and desire that in future the Coal Board should endeavour to have all the main roadways considerably in excess of 5 ft. 6 ins.

In the Clause we are dealing only with roadways made after the commencement of the Act. It is important to have that in mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts) said that if the figure were 6 ft. the Coal Board would have art enormous undertaking in front of it in some parts of the coalfield, particularly in Scotland, with the old roadways, but we are not asking them to remake existing roadways, for the Clause applies only to roadways to be constructed in the future.

I ask the Minister to make it quite clear that although he has written 5 ft. 6 ins. into the Bill, that must not be taken as an instruction to the National Coal Board that 5 ft. 6 ins. is an adequate height for a main roadway in a colliery. I hope that he will not even regard 6 ft. as sufficient for main roadways, but will at least consider a height of 7 ft.

I thank the hon. Member for making that point, because I rose previously with the intention of making it and forgot to do so. Of course, this is a statutory minimum and a large number of roads will be much in excess of it.

New main roads which are being made by the Coal Board are often very much higher than that.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This is a Clause to make sure that training mines are brought properly within the scope of the Bill There was a doubt as to whether that was so, and we must make sure that there are proper safety regulations in training mines

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause gives effect to an undertaking which I gave in Committee that we should take power to make regulations as far as possible to prevent the danger from articles falling down shafts.

Why have quarries been omitted from the Clause? In the Clause we find only the word "mines." A large number of accidents occur in quarries through falling stone. In fact, in the year before last there were 33 fatal accidents in quarries. Are quarries included in the Clause and, if so, why does not the word "quarries" follow the word "mines"? Perhaps the Minister would give me an assurance that quarries are included.

I think I can assist the hon. Member quite shortly. This Clause deals only with articles falling down shafts. The general provisions dealing with falls at the face in quarries are covered in other parts of the Bill.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This also gives effect to an undertaking which I gave in Committee—an undertaking that we should state in the Bill what we knew we wanted, namely, that there should be the provision of refuge holes.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause also gives effect to an undertaking which I gave in Committee—an undertaking that we should take power to deal not only with inflammable gases, but also with noxious gases.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause gives effect to an undertaking which I gave in Committee that we should take power in the Bill to deal with the compulsory use of fire-resisting brattice cloth and conveyor belting. It gives the Minister greater powers than he had in the Bill as it was before the Committee.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This Clause gives the inspector power to require improvements of ventilation not on any specific ground, but on the basis of his expert opinion as a mining engineer and an inspector. In Standing Committee we came to the conclusion that that was the wise thing to do.

Am I to understand that the Clause gives the inspector power to deal with the excess of humidity which may take place in various cases in the mines and to order improvements in ventilation to abolish it?

I have received advice, I am glad to say, that in this Clause ventilation includes humidity.

I think that this Clause is the result of something which was said in Committee when we were discussing excessive heat and excessive humidity. I hope that the Minister will see to that aspect when he draws up the regulations giving the inspectors power to carry out what is intended by this Clause, because the Committee were greatly concerned when we were discussing the question of ventilation. It was on the undertaking of the Minister on that point that we withdrew our pressure at that time. Now we have before us something which I think has gone a long way, subject to the one proviso that the regulations which will govern the application of the clause shall be rigidly drawn up to govern the inspector of mines who is charged with this responsibility.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This new Clause also gives effect to an undertaking that we should take the power to make regulations for properly trained men to deal with accidents in the pits and be able to take men from the place where they may be injured or fall ill. I am advised that the new Clause gives effect to that undertaking, but I can see that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Neal) has an Amendment which deals with the question, which shows that he is not quite certain that that is the case. I wish to tell him that I shall be prepared to accept his Amendment to make the drafting of the Clause clearer.

I am at a loss to understand why quarries are left out of this Clause. This is a Mines and Quarries Bill, and the provision of first-aid made in this Clause applies only to the mines. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why, in the first line of the new Clause, he did not put the words "every mine and quarry." If he did that I shall be satisfied, or I shall be satisfied if he will give us an assurance, as he has done on a previous new Clause, that quarries are covered by some other Clause.

The provisions of this Clause are applied to quarries by Clause 107.

Could we be given the reason why quarries are not mentioned in the new Clause? When the Bill is being interpreted in the courts the Bill will be looked at, not what the Minister says in this House. The new Clause mentions only mines, not quarries. Could the Minister later include the word "quarries"?

If the hon. Gentleman will refer to Clause 107 of the Bill, he will see that it applies this new Clause to quarries.

I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, after the first "conveyance," to insert:

"from the place where they were injured or became ill."

I have no desire to detain the House. I thank the Minister for his assurance.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The new Clause gives effect to the desire expressed in Committee that the inspector should have power to require the provision of additional escape roads in coalmines. We discussed this matter a good deal, and thought it would be better to leave the matter in the hands of the inspector for various safety reasons.

I quite agree with the Clause, because I feel that the inspector should have the power. When we discussed this matter in the Standing Committee the very important question of dummy gates was raised. I see nothing in the new Clause to provide that the Minister will stipulate that if dummy gates are used there will be proper ventilation. I should like to ask the Minister why, if dummy roads—which can be dangerous roads—are to be used there is not provision in the Clause that they should be properly timbered and properly ventilated.

That matter is dealt with in other provisions of the Bill.

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This new Clause gives the Minister power to require the provision of travelling facilities, which is a very important question that we discussed at some considerable length in the Standing Committee. Everybody connected with mining, even those who have a less strong connection with it than that of having worked in the mines, will appreciate the importance of this. The development of man-riding has a considerable part to play, not only from the point of view of safety but also, I believe, of production, the saving of time and energy of men in getting to their work with less fatigue. I hope that we may be able to make proper use of these powers in future, and also that the Coal Board will co-operate in the provision of man-riding facilities.

I wish to welcome the new Clause. I am glad that the Minister has put it in the Bill, and I endorse what he has said. Everybody is now agreed that both on the grounds of safety and still more on grounds of economic advantage—of increasing the output of coal—this is a very important development which should dominate the layout and reconstruction of the mines in the next 10 years. I believe it is true to say that when the national plan has been completed about 75 per cent. or 80 per cent. of the coal we get will come from new mines or mines which have very largely been reconstructed, and in which, therefore, I hope, that this new principle will be followed. I wish to ask whether it is not the case that the Coal Board has adopted this as its policy and is pushing it with all the vigour it can.

Are we quite clear about the constitutional implications of this pew Clause? If it means what I hope it means I am very much in favour of it, but it by-passes the Coal Board at once and makes the Minister responsible to the House of Commons for failure to issue instructions to the Board. This is a very remarkable way in which to introduce a revolutionary principle into legislation, though far be it from me to object to the proposal on other grounds.

I should like my hon. Friends to realise what is happening. If the Minister should be given power by statute to issue what amounts to administrative instructions to the Coal Board, and be required to answer to the House as to why he has not done so, and if it be correct to do it in this case, why should it not be correct to do it in other cases? For example, the Minister here imposes upon himself the obligation where it is

"necessary or expedient in the interests of safety.…"

Suppose an accident occurs in the pit, the Minister not having exercised his power to give directions to the Coal Board. The Minister is, therefore, culpable.

The second point deals with excessive fatigue. I am delighted that is so. I would point out to hon. Members that this will change the Order Paper at once. If the Minister accepts this obligation, hon. Members will be entitled to ask him, on the Order Paper, why he has not carried out the instructions and taken action, which, in this regard, is of an administrative nature. It does not apply to the other regulations at all. The Minister takes upon himself the power to give instructions. If the Minister is quite clear about the constitutional frontiers which he is drawing round himself, I support this at once, and I hope that it is an invitation that he will accept more and more direct responsibilities, because that increases the power of the House of Commons itself.

Before we leave this new Clause, which relates to giving powers to the Minister to make provisions by regulations, I want to reinforce the argument which I advanced on Second Reading. That is that before the regulations governing this type of case and other types of saftey measures in the pits are finalised, the regulations should be submitted to this House in draft form. Although that may be a departure from the general practice, I think that, in the interests of health and safety, Members on both sides ought to have an opportunity of examining to what extent the regulations will improve the health and safety of the mineworkers.

It is apparent to every hon. Member of this House that procedure prohibits us from suggesting or recommending Amendments to the regulations. When the regulations are tabled we have either to accept them as they are, or reject them by praying against them. We had no opportunity of making any suggestions by way of amendment. The point which I put is a very important one when it concerns the health and safety of human beings—that before the regulations are finalised, they should be submitted to this House in draft form, so that we can examine them and give our approval or otherwise, or make recommendations. I wonder whether the Minister, in drafting the regulations, which he has power to do under this new Clause, can tell us that that will be done.

I am rather flattered, as a Conservative Minister, to be held up as a fellow revolutionary.

An unconscious revolutionary.

I have such faith in my constitutional beliefs, that I believe I am saved from the "soft impeachment."

The position is quite clear. In this kind of legislation, the Minister has always had great powers of making regulations, and under the 1911 Act it has been found that the Minister has extraordinary powers of regulation-making, which have been decided empirically by Parliament, from the point of view of safety and health.

What about fatigue?

That is a definite aspect in relation to safety. We all came to that conclusion in Standing Committee. Therefore, I think that the position is quite clear. With regard to the normal productive processes, and taking into account the question of safety, which the Coal Board is statutorily required to do, it will take its normal decisions with regard to the amount of man-riding, like the colliery proprietors did in the old days.

Now we are also empowering the Minister to make regulations, which will be made after consultations, which include those with the National Union of Mineworkers, to deal with this matter on the basis of considering the safety aspect, and we have specifically stated that the question of fatigue is one which the Minister ought to keep in mind from the point of view of safety. I therefore welcome this responsibility of the Minister, and I do not think that it is revolutionary, but it is progressive, and I am glad that in future I and other Ministers will have that responsibility.

I can add this only with the permission of the House, but I should like the Minister to answer a question. If he will look at this, he will find that it does not empower him to make regulations generally, but to make regulations with regard to a specific pit or part of a pit, and to make these regulations with respect to safety, accessibility and fatigue. Will not, therefore, a Member of this House be entitled to say, "In No. 1 pit of a certain district the men are excessively fatigued because travelling facilities are not made available to them. Will the Minister see what can be done about it?"

The Minister is not dealing with the regulations in general. He has an obligation to deal with certain places, so I am afraid, although I am delighted to hear what he says, that in this case his revolutionary ardour is involuntary and he has not seen the significance of the language which he is using in this Clause. I am delighted with it, and I hope that what I have said will not warn him off.

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the point I raised?

There is general consultation, as the hon. Member knows, in making the regulations, and the regulations will, of course, come before the House.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out "reasonably be calculated," and to insert 'be necessary."

This is the first of what, I fear, the House will consider to be a very long series of Amendments—in fact, there are 36 in this particular series—and, therefore, perhaps it would be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if I mentioned how they arise. They all flow from, and are consequential upon, Clause 149. Clause 149 is the new Clause which was introduced in Committee, after a great deal of discussion and consultation.

And heart burning.

It was introduced in its final form now in the Bill without a Division, and, I think, with the approval of the Committee.

The object of the new Clause was to provide one omnibus line of defence running through the Bill instead of the numerous escape Clauses which are scattered in the Bill. As the new Clause had to be considered at the end of the Committee's considerations, it was not possible in Committee to deal with the question of removing from the Bill the various escape Clauses which have been supplanted by Clause 149. It is for that reason that it is necessary for us to ask the indulgence of the House to deal with these Amendments as they crop up, which I think the House will probably be able to consider, after this first one, as consequential Amendments. They are all to the effect of deleting the phrases "reasonably practical," "reasonably calculated" and "reasonably necessary." This particular Amendment is to delete "reasonably be calculated."

I am very grateful for this opportunity of saying a few words on this Amendment which as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary says is one of a series extending throughout the Bill and which of course, is tied up with Clause 149. I am not a lawyer, although I hope that will not be held against me, and I cannot therefore express my argument in legal phraseology. I know, however, that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General will recognise my inevitable shortcomings and will give me the assurance and comfort in layman's language which my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary has not given in his opening remarks.

5.30 p.m.

Those Members of the House who were Members of the Standing Committee may recall that on several occasions I referred to the difficulties that might be experienced by employers in the mining and quarrying industries. In the view of the quarry owners, in particular, this series of Amendments seems to impose new, additional and onerous obligations which they feel it might be almost impossible to fulfil. For that purpose, they want an assurance from my right hon. and learned Friend that their fears are groundless.

In other Amendments of the same nature throughout the Bill, there is a change in phraseology from other Acts of Parliament, such as the Coal Mines Act, 1911, inasmuch as "impracticable" has been used instead of "reasonably practicable." I do not know the precise legal difference between the two phrases, and it is on this precise point that I should like comfort from my right hon. and learned Friend.

Being ignorant in such matters, I sought the guidance of certain legal friends in the House, and they have quoted a number of judgments that were given in cases similar to those which might arise in connection with the Bill when it becomes an Act. I was given the name of Lord Atkin, in the case of the Coltness Iron Company v. Sharp and was referred to certain remarks by Lord Tucker and an interesting judgment by Mr. Justice Maule. They all seem to combine to regard the words "reasonably practicable" as the proper and fair method of describing the responsibility which must be placed on the quarry or mine owner or on the mine manager.

Mr. Justice Maule, who gave an example, said that a man may be said to have lost a shilling when he dropped it into deep water, and although it might be possible by some contrivance or other to recover it, it would not be reasonably practicable to do so because of the labour, time, and so on, involved to get the shilling out of deep water. That is a rather telling argument. I can only say that I have such implicit confidence in the judgment and integrity of my right hon. and learned Friend that I am willing to accept any assurance that he can give me.

There is one point that it is important to clear up. When does a qualified duty or obligation cease and when does it become absolute? The quarry owners believe that all duties that are imposed on them, whether rightly or wrongly—I am merely expressing a view—should be qualified by an element of reasonableness. It is on this one issue that I seek the clarification of my right hon. and learned Friend.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Sir T. Moore) has rather put me on the spot in what he expects me to be able to do. I think that the House would like me to explain as briefly as I can the point which troubles my hon. Friend and those who have asked him to raise it, and to explain how I think their fears are unfounded.

As has been mentioned, the origin of the Amendment and some 30 or more consequential Amendments is that we have decided that it is not desirable to have the Bill, as one might say, peppered with specific escape provisions. In the Coal Mines Act, 1911, there was what might be called an overall escape provision. When we came to prepare the present Bill, we thought it would be rather better to deal with the individual cases and thereby, perhaps, deal with the very point which my hon. Friend has raised; that is to say, how to show where the absolute obligation ends and the qualified obligation begins.

Throughout the Bill one finds expressions like "as may reasonably be calculated," "so far as is reasonably practicable," and so on. When the matter came to be discussed in Committee—I speak in the hearing of hon. Members opposite who have pleasant, and perhaps some not so pleasant, recollections of those long days we spent upstairs—it become obvious as we went along that this constant repetition of the expression "not reasonably practicable" and similar expressions was causing everyone a great deal of irritation. The feeling grew more and more that he old system of having one all-over Clause, drawing the individual obligations in clear terms and then giving managers and owners some general right of escape, was preferred by the Opposition, and there were also Members on this side who seemed to feel the same way.

Therefore, after we had passed a number of the Clauses—that is why these Amendments have to be made now—I was asked to see, with the assistance of the Parliamentary draftsman, whether it would be possible to find a form of words which would provide a general escape Clause in terms which were acceptable and which would not substantially alter the legal position from what it was before, and which would enable us to get rid of these numerous irritants.

In so doing, I referred at once to the Coal Mines Act, 1911, in Section 102 of which I found that there was this present protection. The significant thing was that it was in two parts. Subsection (3) dealt with the criminal liability, and subsection (8) dealt with the civil liability. The language that was used in those two cases was slightly different.

In the case of the civil liability, the language was that the owner

"shall not be liable to an action for damages … for breach of statutory duty in respect of any contravention of or non-compliance with any of the provisions of this Act if it is shown that it was not reasonably practicable to avoid or prevent the breach."

Those are the words that have been used in a large number of these "peppering" provisions. In subsection (3), dealing with the criminal provisions, nothing was to

"render the owner, agent, or manager of a mine liable to a penalty in respect of any contravention … if he proves that the contravention or non-compliance was due to causes over which he had no control and against the happening of which it was impracticable for him to make provision."

It was decided—I think the Committee generally approved—that we should have one single provision covering both civil and criminal proceedings. I think one can see at a glance from what I have read that there is plenty of room for the lawyers to get into arguments if there is a change in the same subsection.

I must not trespass on Clause 149, but it can be seen by reference to it that we have there provided a general escape Clause based largely on the word "impracticable." We have made it as simple as possible in deference, not to the Opposition, but to the men who have got to do the actual work in the mine, and who are entitled to read and do read the provisions of the Bill. A great many people read Acts of Parliament, and it was impressed upon us that the language of an Act was an important thing and simplification was something which would be welcomed. The House of Commons has said that recently on several occasions. We therefore took a simple expression based on the word "impracticable," as hon. Members can see by looking at the Clause.

What has been said is that because civil liability in the 1911 Act was based on the expression "not reasonably practicable," the changing of the wording to "impracticable" might have the effect of placing a heavier onus on the owner than was the case before. All I can say is that even if it were not for the existence of Section 102 (3) in the 1911 Act, to which I have already referred, I would say there is substantially little difference between these two things. But when one finds that the word "impracticable" is the word actually used for criminal liability in the 1911 Act, I do not think that anyone can say there is anything unreasonable in making that the criterion of the present Bill.

I am entirely in the hands of the House in the matter, and, if I can, I will give any further explanation upon it if that is desired. I cannot see that there is any real reason for alarm. We have given the benefit to the owners in this way. The protection that we provide is based upon the criminal provisions of the 1911 Act, and the House will be aware that in similar circumstances the liability is always less and the onus of proof is always more easily discharged by a person who is accused of any offence or contravention under the criminal code than in any other case. Therefore, I think the words we have adopted are fair to the owners, and I hope that the House will accept them.

Can my right hon. and learned Friend quote any case in which the expression containing the word "impracticable" in the 1911 Act has been defined by judicial decision?

I am afraid I cannot give it, for the reason that "impracticable" has relation to criminal cases, and there are no criminal cases of which I am aware that have gone to any court of appeal where it was necessary for the court to define the word "impracticable." If the matter is dealt with in the ordinary criminal courts, there is no necessity for any such decision. There is the decision on the word "impracticable" to which my hon. Friend referred when he was talking about hearing the penny drop.

It has been said, and I hope it is hardly necessary for me to repeat it, that when one is using the word "impracticable" one does not mean "impossible." One means "impracticable" according to the businesslike understanding of people who are carrying out commercial or industrial operations.

As has already been said, no one wants the question of costs to interfere with safety, but it will be obvious that, if it were necessary to expend several million pounds in order to avert the possibility of an accident, no one would suggest that that has got to be done. After all, we must conduct this great industry on a proper basis. Therefore, anyone who says that by using the word "impracticable" we would make it impossible for the owners to escape liability even in cases where they are faced with vast expenditure is not speaking accurately, and I do not think the House need be alarmed by that possibility.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 15, at the end, to insert:

"and to the manager of the mine or, as the case may be, the manager of the quarry or (where there is more than one manager thereof) each of them."

This Amendment gives effect to an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the object of which is to ensure that, in the event of an owner giving instructions of special responsibility to any person who is not a manager, copies of the instruction shall be sent by the owner or given by the owner to the manager of the mine or any manager of a quarry. That fully implements the undertaking which my right hon. Friend gave.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, to leave out subsection (2), and to insert:

(2) Except in a case of emergency, neither the owner of a mine nor a person acting on his behalf shall, except with the consent of the manager of the mine, give, otherwise than through the manager, any instructions to a person employed at the mine who is responsible to the manager; and where the owner of a mine or a person acting on his behalf gives, in either of the said excepted cases, instructions which, apart from the exception, would be required to be given through the manager of the mine, the person who gave the instructions shall, forthwith after he has given them, inform the manager of the substance thereof and, if requested so to do by the manager, confirm them in writing forthwith after the making of the request.

The foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any instructions given by an under-manager of a mine or a person appointed by the manager of a mine in pursuance of this Act or regulations.

This Amendment also gives effect to an undertaking given by my right hon. Friend to redraft the subsection so that it should provide that instructions must not be given to a subordinate except in an emergency or with the manager's consent. This subsection is redrafted in line with the similar subsection which applies to quarries and which was introduced in a new form. They tie up together.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 38, at the end, to insert:

(c) all such written instructions shall be kept in the official records of the mine or quarry;

(d) where the manager of a mine or quarry is of opinion that the written instructions would or might be likely to prejudice the safety or health of the persons employed at the mine or quarry he shall, pending consultation with the inspector, decline to execute them.

We do not like the idea that instructions should be given to anybody without any record being kept, and so we ask that they shall be given in writing and kept in the official records of the mine or quarry, so that they can be available for examination at any time.

This is an important Amendment because it arises directly from the Knockshinnock disaster in Scotland. It is an attempt to prevent the divided responsibility which led to that disaster two or three years ago. It also deals with the hierarchy between the National Coal Board and the manager of the pit and the power to interfere with the safe working of the pit.

We had a long discussion on this point upstairs and we on this side of the House took the view that written instructions are no less dangerous because they are in writing. It takes a very courageous manager to take a stand against those above him, even if he believes that the written instructions he receives are prejudicial to the health and welfare and safety of his men. Therefore, we want to put the manager in a position where, although he has received written instructions from those above him to do a certain thing, if, as manager of that pit, he still believes it will be prejudicial to the safety of his men, he shall not be forced to undertake it until such time as he has had an opportunity to consult the inspector for the division.

When in Committee we were seeking to ensure that the manager should have power to go to a tribunal to protect his job, which might be jeopardised because he refused to carry out written instructions, the Parliamentary Secretary said:

"But the manager is not left without his remedies. We believe that the remedies which are inherent in his position give him a much stronger standing than this right to run off to a referee. First of all, he has Her Majesty's Government Inspector of -Mines. If he thinks that he is being asked to do something which is contrary to good safety practice, the first thing he can do is to call in the Inspector of Mines and to say, 'Is this a right and proper thing?' "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A. 23rd February. 1954; c. 128–129.]

Since the Parliamentary Secretary said that the manager had the right to go to the inspector, we thought it advisable to specify the inspector here, in view of the Knockshinnock disaster. Also, in that disaster instructions were given, but not in writing. Therefore, this Amendment ensures that all written instructions given to a manager by the hierarchy above him shall be kept at the office so that, if a future disaster occurs arising from such instructions, they can be found there and used in evidence. For these reasons, I support the Amendment and I hope the Minister will accept it.

It is possible that this provision may never have to be used, but if only on one occasion loss of life is prevented as a result of it, I consider that it is well worth spending our time in talking about this Amendment. We have to realise that in making such decisions the human element comes in, and that there is always a possibility of mistakes being made. Cleverness is not always wisdom, and if a colliery manager is given instructions to do something, and has gained wisdom from his experience, he may be of opinion that what he has been instructed to do will result in loss of life.

I cannot see why this Amendment should not be accepted. After all, we want the same thing—to prevent injury and loss of life in the mining industry. This Amendment will not impede coal production, it will not cause ill-feeling between the colliery manager and the hierarchy which has been referred to, and it may be important in preventing disaster. Because of the catastrophe in Scotland which has been mentioned, we hope the Minister will have second thoughts on this matter.

I appeal to the Minister to consider this Amendment favourably. I spent some years in a colliery office and I well remember one grisly experience in the year 1910. Because there was no such phraseology in the 1873 Act, a workman let loose hundreds of tons of water, with the resulting death of two men and the injury of six others. That experience, and the Knockshinnock disaster in recent years, gives the Minister sufficient illustration of the dangers which could be avoided by the acceptance of this Amendment.

I support the Amendment. It is important that instructions given by a colliery manager in matters like these should be on record in the colliery office. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde), I recall that some years ago when I was in the coalfield I was charged with the responsibility of making inquiries into the cause of a disaster which involved the loss of seven men. In the course of those inquiries I was informed by one or two subordinate officials of the mine that they had had instructions from the manager to do such and such things. Unfortunately, I discovered that the manager could not be questioned. He had lost his life in the disaster.

I called upon his subordinates to produce the instructions. They said that they had not been given instructions in writing and that if they were in writing they knew nothing about them. I concluded that, in future, instructions issued by a manager to a subordinate should be in writing and that a record of the instructions should be kept in the colliery office. That is of paramount importance.

Copies of practically every report made by a colliery deputy during the 24 hours are kept in the colliery office. If it is important and essential that copies of reports on the daily round and common tasks and operations at the pit should be kept, it is equally important and essential that records of instructions given by the manager to subordinates should also be kept in the colliery office. This is not asking a great deal. We are not asking that every little tittle-tattle of instruction should be written down, but when instructions involve a change of policy in the working of the mine, a change in the ventilation and other important matters, in the interests not only of the men who are working in the pit but of the Minister a record should be kept. If a catastrophe occurs the Minister will be called upon by Private Notice Question to answer questions from both sides of the House. I trust, therefore, that the Government will agree that it is of paramount importance that the Amendment should be accepted, because it would tend to greater safety in future.

If the Amendment were accepted, it would help the manager, because from the administrative point of view mining has altered very considerably in recent years. There are now divisions, areas, sub-areas and two or three pits in a group and there are people who, at any time, can give instructions to the manager. If the manager does not have those instructions in writing and the catastrophe occurs, somebody can come along and say, "Mr. So-and-So gave the manager these instructions." In the interests of all, from the manager downwards, the Minister ought to accept the Amendment so that when an accident happens officials will be safeguarded from somebody coming along and suggesting that they have not carried out certain instructions given to them.

We are in thorough sympathy with the first part of the Amendment, contained in the proposed paragraph (c), and we will undertake to introduce in another place the best form of words to give effect to it. I hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will be satisfied with that. On the whole, we think it unwise to agree to the second part, the proposed paragraph (d). We have discussed this matter a great deal and, as hon. Members know, I have thought very hard about the question whether it would be possible to go further in giving protection to the manager.

We have already given him very considerable protection in the fact that in certain circumstances he can demand to have instructions in writing from somebody who has the same mining qualifications as himself. If he is not satisfied with that, he can demand that they shall be confirmed in writing by someone specifically appointed by the owner to confirm such instructions. In the case of the National Coal Board, it would be a man of such mining experience as would make him particularly competent to deal with the questions which aroused slight doubt in the manager's mind.

We feel that the best practical resort for a mine manager in such a case is to communicate confidentially with the mines inspector. That is always open to him. We feel that this is not a case in which anything is added or improved from the point of view of the mine manager by putting this provision in the statute. The mine manager has a right to go to the mines inspector in confidence. We would expect him to do so and in such a case the mines inspector would give him support.

That was a very peremptory reply on a very important matter. As the right hon. Gentleman will recall, this was one of the central objections to the Bill on Second Reading. Although the Bill has been subsequently improved, nevertheless there is still a difficulty here which has to be resolved. It is not enough to say that the colliery manager can have a confidential conversation with the inspector. Can that be pleaded in evidence in an inquiry? The manager need not do it. He might do it, but if he did, would a record of the consultation be kept? If consultations have taken place, will the mines inspector take the responsibility of authorising the manager to go on? That is a very difficult situation.

I should have thought that we must go much further. One must always assume that a mine manager does not act frivolously in these matters. He will only take this exceptional step if he is very satisfied that danger is involved. First of all, he will have received written instructions, and therefore he is quite clear about them. After having examined them, he will say, "In my view these ought not to be carried out and I am going to see the mines inspector." He sees the mines inspector and I should not have thought that the mines inspector would put himself in the grave position of saying to the manager, "Your fears are groundless. Go ahead." If anything happens after that, the mines inspector is in trouble. It puts the mines inspector in the position of being an administrative official and not an inspector. That is the difficulty.

Surely what would happen in practice would be that the mines inspector would go to a person superior to the mine manager and say, "Do you not think that you ought to pay attention to what the mine manager says?" The mine manager is on the spot. The man who is giving him instructions will have a general knowledge about the position but not a precise knowledge about the pit or a district in the pit. Therefore, the authority of the mine manager is always superior in that respect, in that his knowledge would not be academic as would be the knowledge of a superior person with similar qualification, but would be precise and particular with regard to that part of the pit. Therefore, in our view, if the mine manager has taken exception it is an exception which ought at once to be respected and ought not to be set, aside unless further steps are taken to investigate.

I quite see that the Amendment can be improved. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the movers of Amendments do not tie themselves to the actual language. It is for him to consult the Parliamentary draftsmen. We require here a further protection, rather more than a mere written instruction. A mine manager will not take such an instruction frivolously. We are very anxious that there should be no discordance of responsibility. We are exceedingly anxious that the responsibility shall be seen where it really lies, on the colliery manager, and that that responsibility should be transferred to anyone else only after the most careful protection has been given to the mine manager and the men concerned.

We do not want to be too rough about this, but it really is not good enough to weep tears when men's lives are lost in the pit and then to sweep aside the provisions of practical persons to prevent that kind of thing from happening. I know that there was an argument at first that we should put the exclusive responsibility on the mine manager. Personally, I was in favour of that.

So was I.

I was not impressed by the argument that the responsibility of the mine manager in this respect had been at all modified by virtue of the growth of limited liability companies owning collieries and having colliery agents. That was a purely property organisation and had nothing to do with safety. I am thinking of great organisations like Powell Duffryn. They were not more superior to the management because of the safety question but merely because of the commercial organisation of the colliery. The safety responsibility of the manager was still there, although it was eroded by virtue of the hierarchy set above him.

What we want is to restore the prestige and responsibility of the mine manager. Where that cannot be fully restored because the Minister is setting his face against that, we want to secure as much protection as we can for the mine manager because only in that way can we protect the men in the pit. There is no other way and we cannot have any muddle of responsibility here. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will promise to look at this matter in another place and see whether he can find the language which would put the mine manager on firm ground before he carries out the written instructions of his superiors.

I do not think anyone who has been on the Committee would say that I have done anything peremptory on this Bill.

I was talking about today.

I was not peremptory, but was trying to be reasonably brief. Since the right hon. Member has raised these other points, perhaps the House will allow me to make some observations on them.

I have thought a great deal about this problem and have consulted very much with hon. Members. If I could see a further way I could have gone to give protection to the colliery manager, I would have done so. Indeed, it was only after considering every possibility at tremendous length that I reluctantly came to the conclusion that I could not see how we could make effective progress further.

As a matter of fact, I think it would not be indiscreet to say that the actual suggestion made in this Amendment was one originally thrown out by myself in the course of a general discussion. I was trying to see whether there was a way in which we could make a further protection, but although I did think of this, I came to the conclusion afterwards that it was unwise. The reason was the particular point on which the right hon. Member picked, namely, the question of proper allocation of responsibilities. I hope he will not think I am putting this in any wrong spirit, but the right hon. Member really exposed the unfortunate weakness of the proposal in this Amendment, to which at one time I was attracted, because it places managerial responsibility on the inspector.

That is the reason I am not pressing, and I am sure my hon. Friends do not press, for this precise language. I think the right hon. Gentleman should exercise his ingenuity to provide for some further action which the manager could take in circumstances where he has taken exception to written instructions.

I see the point which the right hon. Member has made. If I could think of some other solution to this problem which would help the colliery manager but not do it in a way which would have some other disadvantage like the one contained in this Amendment, I should be prepared to consider it very seriously for incorporation in the Bill in another place. All I can say is that up to the present none of us has been able to find a solution. Therefore, we

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at this matter again between now and the consideration of the Bill in another place? As I understand, the kernel of his argument is that this Amendment would be undesirable because it would place managerial responsibility on the inspector. I know that very eminent persons in the inspectorate hold that objection, but I have never seen that it is right. This is the sort of thing which happens between managements and inspectors every day of the week. The only difference is that in this case a manager does not want to obey an order until he has had advice on the safety aspect. I should think the inspector would be the right person to consult in any case, whether he had an order from above or not. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that he will consider the matter again.

I will certainly consider it, but it would not be fair to the House to give the impression that I can see a ready way out of this difficulty. In answer to the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mr. Noel-Baker) it is true that they consult the inspectors. It is quite proper that they should do so, and we would regard it as proper to do so in this case; but it is one thing to consult in the ordinary course of administration, it is another thing to place a statutory responsibility for consultation. That is the difficulty.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 3, to leave out "twenty-five," and to insert "twenty-six."

I appreciate the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary. He said that some had said that the age should be less and others had said that it should be more. I want more. I want to tell the Minister and his advisers that I am still not satisfied. In Committee I offered to compromise in a moderate and temperate way. I suggest that I was more than reasonable when I reduced my figure from 30 to 28. I have always contended that with the difficulties, natural and human, which managers have to meet, especially in large collieries, a man cannot have had the necessary experience at an early age. I suggest that those who have agreed to the Minister's suggestion are wrong. They have erred on the wrong side.

Under modern methods of mining the men who ultimately fill these posts are studying up to the age of 22. This is a salient consideration. I have seen many managers, and how in the name of goodness some of them got certificates I do not know. I have seen some men with first-class certificates to whom I would not give a certificate for a county minor educational examination. These men could not test for gas. It has been my experience as an ordinary man to challenge men who have been certificated on how to handle a lamp when testing for gas. Of course, I would not say that that is general throughout the industry. A lot has been done under the examining board, and more must be done. I do not speak of the ordinary shotfirer, or the deputy, and so on, but of one who holds the key position governing the life and well-being of thousands of men.

I am most disappointed that some of our friends on the other side of the industry have succumbed to the wishes or to the dictates of the Minister and his advisers. The Amendment is unfair. Many of these young men will have had no practical experience. Before the men in the coalfields can appoint a man to be their representative and to inspect the workings, he must have had five years' practical experience. Under the Amendment a man can get a first-class certificate and then be permitted to have control of the life and well-being, socially, administratively, industrially, and so on, of many men, at the age of 26. A man can be certificated and have that responsibility without having had any practical experience.

There was a weakness in the 1911 Act, and I contend that there is also one here. There is no other industry like mining. There is no industry so difficult or dangerous. It is unfair and unfitting that while a man on the workman's side must have had five years' experience, quite apart from his schooling, a man can have merely a theoretical knowledge of the industry without any practical experience and can then take a post like this at the age of 26. In many cases the man will not be capable of fulfilling the duties involved. I oppose the Amendment. I am very sorry that the Minister did not accept the age of 28.

As the Parliamentary Secretary said, the matter was discussed on Second Reading and at some length in Committee. I took the view in Committee that on the whole, the age of 25 was not sufficient, and to that extent I am glad that it has been suggested that the figure should be raised to 26. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. D. Griffiths). I am not completely happy about 26, although I accept the Amendment.

What has a certificated man done by the age of 25 or 26? With the raising of the age at which he can go underground, he will not go underground until he is 18. After a year or so underground he will be selected to go to a vocational training school, where he will spend another 18 months or so learning the theory and, in a small way, the practical side of the business. If he does well he will be selected to have a scholarship to a mining university, where he will do a theoretical course from which he will emerge at about the age of 23. He then has two years' practical experience—now three years—before being selected as a colliery manager. That is a very short time.

His counterpart, the university student, probably emerges from his university at about the age of 23 also. He requires somewhat more practical experience than the boy who has risen from working in the pit. In that case also he is really not very well fitted at the age of 26 to take charge of a large colliery or indeed of any colliery. We must remember the psychological aspect. Thinking of their safety, men will be bound to ask how much practical experience the young man has if he is to look after their lives, apart from looking after the pit in general.

It must be obvious from the discussions which have taken place that the age of 26 must be the very youngest at which anyone can be considered as a colliery manager. This will not mean that we shall lose the valuable services of a particularly brilliant young man, for there are plenty of other jobs that he can do as a certificated manager before he takes on a post as colliery manager. There is work in the planning department, where he can gain a great deal of experience and can be most usefully employed in the meantime.

It may interest hon. Members opposite to know that, since taking this attitude, I have discussed the matter with a number of young men whom I appointed to be managers. I had always taken the view that the desirable age for that post was 28. Most of those young men have since risen to very giddy heights within the National Coal Board. They all agree that it was wise to delay their promotion to colliery managers until about the age of 28. They were bright young men. If I had to live my life over again, I should still take the view that I did then. After all, a man of 28 is not really very old.

Although for the purposes of the Bill the statutory minimum of 26 will, I believe, be practically sound, I hope that the National Coal Board in its wisdom will see to it that men are 27 or 28 before they are appointed colliery managers.

The hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde (Colonel Lancaster) has been courageous enough both during the Committee stage and on Report to speak against the proposed minimum age for mine managers.

The reason why I am opposed to the proposed minimum age is the changing circumstances which have manifested themselves at many pits within the past 25 years. Years ago, it was a very big pit which employed 300 or 400 men, but we now have pits employing up to 3,000 men. From the point of view of mechanisation and of handling men, the situation has changed considerably.

One fact which was brought out during the Committee stage in our discussions on this aspect of the Bill was that we have raised the school-leaving age by a year and are raising the age limit in respect of young men going underground. The latter change is a step in the right direction, but it prevents the young man from getting his experience as early as young men used to get their experience in days gone by.

6.45 p.m.

There is another aspect which the Opposition, and particularly hon. Members from coalfields, must bear in mind. A man of 26 cannot understand the psychology of the miner. Any man who is to be successful in the mining industry, as a mine manager, as an under-manager or even as a checkweighman, must have a profound understanding of the psychology of the miner. No matter how academically qualified a young man may be, it is impossible for him, in the short period suggested, to appreciate human relationships with the men in the pits as they should be.

I remember a young man with very brilliant academic qualifications—none greater—entering the coal industry. He went to a large colliery and, like a new broom, began to sweep clean. He did his best in every conceivable way. Within a few months it was found that he had caused more loss of production than any mine manager who had preceded him. This was not because he did not possess engineering and other qualifications. It was because he did not understand the psychology of the miner. It was my painful duty to meet him on many occasions and sometimes to put him in his place, for the colliery might otherwise have stopped for all time. Because this young man, with his brilliant academic qualifications, did not understand the men in the pits, he upset the colliery more than any man who had ever been employed there.

As a result of our intervention and our kindly talks with him, he took the road which led to success. It may surprise hon. Members to learn that today that young man is the National Production Officer for the Coal Board. There we have an example to show that a young man who is moulded in the right way and gains an understanding of human relationships, proves to be much more successful than he would otherwise be.

I will not suggest what the age should be. That is a matter for the Minister and the Coal Board. If we do not put a specific age in the Bill, I think that the Board will see the wisdom of appointing as managers men who have more experience than they are likely to have obtained at 26. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for South Fylde and my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. D. Griffiths) that 28 should be the minimum age. If the Minister would agree with us about the age of 28 before the Bill goes to another place, that would give us a greater degree of contentment, if not satisfaction.

I wonder whether the Minister can tell us anything about the practice of the National Coal Board which would help us to appreciate the Amendment and to accept the age limit which is suggested.

I am sure that the Minister will appreciate the anxieties of some of my hon. Friends lest a young man of 26 should be given the job of manager in a large colliery employing 3,000 or 4,000 men. None of us would consider that a man of 26 would have the experience to fit him for the job. I do not think that the Board would dream of appointing a man of 26 to take charge of a colliery employing 3,000 or 4,000 men.

I should think it is the exception rather than the rule, even today, for young men to be appointed colliery managers at the age of 26, but I do not know. It does not happen in my own area, and I wonder whether the Minister has any statistics about it, particularly as concerning the practice of the Board. Here, we are simply laying down a minimum age at which a person can be employed as a colliery manager.

May I add that, when the 1911 Act was going through this House, it was desirable for Parliament to determine a minimum age. In those days, most of our collieries in this country were comparatively small and had a single owner. They were collieries owned either by very small companies or by private persons, many of them being one-owner collieries. It was understandable that, in many cases, the owner's son was trained to be the colliery manager, and, when he attained the age of 25, very often he became the manager of the colliery. If we had not had a minimum age of 25, it might well have been that we should have had young men of 20 being appointed to the management of a colliery.

Things have changed altogether, and I do not think there should be any danger today of young men who are too immature being given a responsible job in the mining industry. The Minister should tell us something about the practice of the National Coal Board, because that might allay the fears of some of my hon. Friends. If he cannot do that, no doubt, my hon. Friends will continue to feel very concerned lest a man who, at the age of 26 is still inexperienced, should be given the responsibility of managing a colliery at which 3,000 workers are employed.

This is a matter on which I feel very strongly. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has asked the Minister about the methods of appointment, but I have had some experience of this matter, and I want to point out to the Minister that the people who are colliery managers today are men who came from the coal face, at which they spent most of their previous working lives. and had received their training at technical colleges in the evenings.

I had one experience concerning a man who got a job as manager at a colliery where I was checkweighman, and I remember that, on one occasion, about 30 miners were entombed. I received a telephone message, and I rushed off to the colliery, where I found that this young fellow of 26 or 27 did not know the way to start the job of extricating these men from the place in which they were trapped. Had it not been for the wiser and more experienced men at the colliery, it is very doubtful whether those men would ever have been got out of the pit.

The point that I want to make is that, from my own experience and knowledge, it is not a question of a man having the capacity for the job or being the right age; it depends on the number of friends one has on the executive of the National Coal Board. That is the danger, and there are many people employed by the Board not because of their capacity to do the job, but because they were the friends of private enterprise in the mining industry when the Board took it over. It has become more or less a family concern, into which people are being brought, not because of their capacity or ability to do the job, but simply because they have uncles, friends or relatives who have big jobs on the Board. That is the danger that I see.

Personally, I would not agree to the appointment of colliery manager being given to young men unless they had had at least five years' experience as under-manager. I therefore hope that the Minister will give further consideration to the matter.

If I may have the leave of the House to reply to the debate, may I remind hon. Members that I indicated in my opening remarks that I was quite certain that, if the debate should continue, we would hear a great many interesting arguments from both sides of the House and in many directions, and that has been the case.

I want to emphasise to the House that this age of 26 is a statutory minimum. It is the fact that no person below the age of 26 can be made a colliery manager, and that represents an advance of one year on what has been the statutory minimum for the last 40-odd years. With regard to what the hon. Member for Bothwell (Mr. Timmons) said, I do not think he need have any anxieties as far as the coal mines are concerned, on the score of nepotism. I do not think cases can arise in which the owners' sons will be appointed to positions for which they do not possess the necessary qualifications.

In reply to the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Fylde (Col. Lancaster), it is not to be expected—and I can tell the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) that it is not the practice—of the National Coal Board to appoint young men to manage big collieries. It is recognised that it is a part of their essential training, if they are to become managers of big collieries, that they must start as managers of small collieries.

Moreover they cannot become colliery managers or be certificated without having had practical training. Just as in the Merchant Navy a man can get his qualifications and his "ticket" at the age, I think, of 21 or 22, at which age no one would dream of placing him in command of the "Queen Elizabeth," although, strictly speaking, one would be entitled to do it, so in the coal industry no one would dream of putting a person with the bare minimum statutory qualifications in command of a big colliery.

I hope the House will accept that point of view, and will accept the age of 26, to which we have given very great consideration and on which we have had discussions with all the people who we thought could help in the matter. From all these discussions, we believe that it is the right age to insert in the Bill.

I think the debate has shown that there is a very strong case in principle for what we said in Committee, although, from my personal experience, I must say that one of the ablest managers of a colliery whom I have known was only 25 years of age. He was appointed by the National Coal Board, and he had started work as a pit boy and had studied at evening classes and later at a university. The miners in the pit were extremely proud of him and had great confidence in him, but that was an exceptional case.

In principle, it ought not to happen, and we think that it is wrong. No doubt, it will very rarely happen that the Board will appoint such men, but this is only a statutory minimum, and, since the Government have given us one year, for that reason we will not vote against the Amendment, though we hope that the Minister will again reconsider the matter, if he can.