1344

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

June 20, 1913

DRAFT GENERAL REGULATIONS.

Proceedings before the Referee.

Proceedings were opened on Tuesday before the Right
Hon. Lord Mersey, the Referee appointed to hold a
reference under section 86 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911,
into Draft General Regulations. The following were
the appearances:—Mr. Samuel Pope and Mr. Harold
McKenna appeared for the Home Office; Sir Thomas
Ratcliffe-Ellis represented the Mining Association of
Great Britain, and also the National Association of
Colliery Managers ; Mr. Robert Smillie represented the
Miners’ Federation of Great Britain; Mr. John Tryon
represented the South Staffordshire and East Worcester-
shire Coalmasters’ Association, Mr. David Dixon repre-
sented the Cleveland Mineowners’ Association and the
Cleveland Miners’ Association ; Mr. Joseph Walters
represented the General Federation of Firemen,
Examiners and Deputies Associations of Great Britain,
and the National Association of Colliery Deputies; Mr.
James Clark represented the Durham Deputies Mutual
Aid Association; Mr. Thomas Wright and Mr. Samuel
Coulthard represented the Northumberland Colliery
Enginemen’s and Firemen’s Association; Mr. John
William Sumnor represented the North Staffordshire
Underground Colliery Firemen’s and Shotlighters’
Association; Mr. W. B. Charlton represented the
National Federation of Colliery Enginemen and
Boilermen.

Mr. Pope said he appeared with Mr. McKenna, on
behalf of the Home Office, in support of these regula-
tions. The scheme of these regulations was laid down
partly by section 86 of the Coal Mines Act of 1911,
which directed that the Secretary of State might by
Order make such general regulations for the conduct
and guidance of the persons acting in the management
of mines, and it partly laid down the procedure that the
regulations were to be made by the Secretary of State.
Part I. of the Second Schedule was headed “ Procedure
for making General Regulations.” Briefly, the procedure
was this, that the regulations should be first established
by the Secretary of State in draft. That was for the
purpose of giving parties who were interested an oppor-
tunity of lodging objections if they desired to do so.
That draft was issued in January last, and a number
of objections had been received by the Secretary of
State in consequence of that publication ; and in pur-
suance of the directions in the Second Schedule, those
objections have been referred for enquiry by a referee.
Before the draft regulations were issued conferences
took place both between the Mining Association, or, as
they might be termed, the owners, and the men, and
the Home Office, with a view of getting as large a
measure of agreement as possible in connection with the
regulations which were proposed, and, since the receipt
of the objections, further conferences had been held both
between themselves, and between the owners and the
men, jointly, and the Home Office, and the object had
been, if necessary, to come to agreement upon as many
objections as possible, and a certain measure of success
had attended that attempt; agreements had been come
to upon a number of points. With reference to this
draft as a whole, the draft regulations fell into two
broad sections. There was first of all general regula-
tions as to safety, discipline and such like matters, made
under the general power given by section 86 of the Act.
That was divided up into parts. With regard to
Parts 1, 5 and 6 of the draft, those were a group of
regulations which might be spoken of as general regula-
tions as regards safety, discipline and other matters
referred to in section 86 of the Act, which said:—“ The
< Secretary of State may by order make such general
regulations for the conduct and guidance of the persons
acting in the management of mines or employed in or
about mines as may appear best calculated to prevent
dangerous accidents, and to provide for the safety,
health, convenience and proper discipline of the
persons employed in or about the mines.” Those
Parts 1, 5 and 6 of the draft were based upon that
section. The second broad group of regulations related
to specific subjects, 'such as air measurement, lamps,
and so on, as to which the Secretary of State was
authorised by the Act to make regulations. Those fell
under three groups of Parts 2, 3, and 4. He would also
explain the relationship between these draft regulations
and the rules at present in force in connection with
mines throughout the country, and under which the
mines were at present working. Under the Act of 1887
each mine had to establish by virtue of the provisions
of section 51 of the Mines Act, 1887, what was known
as the special rules of the mine; in theory each mine
was regarded as a separate unit, and for the purposes
of the special rule, but in the course of practice a
system arose of agreeing or adopting in a certain
district or area the same code of rules to apply
to the mines in that district to a great extent.
These rules were made under a provision by special
procedure laid down in the Act of 1887. The
Royal Commission’s very exhaustive investigation led
up to the framing of the present Coal Mines Act, 1911.
The Royal Commission reported in the following terms
upon the subject of these special rules:—“ One of the
most noticeable features of the existing codes is that,
while they are generally similar in character and deal
with the same questions, subject to local differences of
custom, yet there is a bewildering divergence, not only
in the requirements of the rules, but in the language in
which they are couched. There is no doubt a marked
difference of practice in certain departments of mining
in the different coalfields, and it may be urged with

some force that it would not be practicable to reduce the
present rules to one general code identical in require-
ments and in language. Since, however, the system of
special rules was established, the barriers of local
custom and practice have to a large extent been
removed, and, subject to local differences of terms, there
is room for much greater uniformity in the rules. It is
apparent that a considerable part of mining practice is
common to all the coalfields, and this has already been
recognised in the case of the special rules for the instal-
lation and use of electricity. There are many other
matters which are equally capable of a uniform treat-
ment, such as the provisions in regard to shot-firing, the
use of safety lamps, &c., and we think that the time
has come for emphasising the similarities rather than
the differences of practice in the various coalfields.”.
On the following page there was one passage he would
like to read :—“ There are obvious advantages in keeping
the length of the codes within as narrow limits as is
consistent with the interests of safety, since the shorter
a code is the easier it is both for workmen and officials
to familiarise themselves with its provisions. Uni-
formity, so far as it can be attained, would also be
beneficial, as it would facilitate administration and the
maintenance of discipline.” As a result of that, the
Commission recommended that all those special rules
which had existed all over the country should be
replaced by general regulations, and the draft now before
the Referee proposed to repeal all special rules in
force under the Act repealed by the Coal Mines Act,
1911, and to substitute for them a code for general
application, and that is the code which is now in draft
in connection with which the objections have been made.
The Home Office in drawing up this part of the code, of
course had very carefully considered all the existing
codes of special rules, and in the main the proposals in
Parts 1, 5, and 6, dealing with matters of safety, were
founded on the existing special rules. The aim had
been, as far as possible, to preserve continuity, and at
the same time to carry out the recommendations of the
Royal Commission, to generalise the best features of
the existing special rules in the form of a general
code. One other point he might refer to. A special
feature of the old code of special rules was this,
that they worked out in detail the statutory require-
ments as to safety contained in the Act of Parliament
itself, that is to say, in the Act of 1887. They did that
by assigning to different classes of workmen and officials
in the mine their respective duties in regard to the
carrying out of the statutory requirements. That, of
course, tended to make these codes of great length, and
the Royal Commission reported against that system. In
the present draft the Home Office had accordingly made
no similar attempt to work out in detail the statutory
requirements as to safety. They were contained in
Part 2 of the Act of 1911. The Act itself made sufficient
provisions to bring home to the different parties
concerned their responsibility for compliance in their
respective spheres with the statutory requirements.
The general parts of the present draft 1, 5, and 6 were
limited to supplementing the various points'of detail
and dealing with the duties of particular classes of
officials and men which were not covered by the Act
itself. On the question of procedure, his suggestion
was that it would be most convenient to dispose of each
regulation separately before proceeding to the next one.
He would also like to say that it would be most con-
venient that, as representing the Home Office, he should
explain, if necessary, the object of the regulations, and as
to what was said with regard to the printed objections.
With regard to a number of them, he would call the Home
Office mining experts to give evidence, but that would
be made as brief as possible. With regard to some of
the regulations which were based upon the specific
recommendations of the Royal Commission, his case
would principally rest upon the considered and unani-
mous report of that Commission, and he was fortified in
that by the knowledge that his distinguished friends,
Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis and Mr. Smillie, were
assenting parties to the report, and they were very
important members of that Committee. As regards the
objections, they varied very much in importance, and
they ranged from raising important questions of
principle to points which he thought might prove to
be largely matters of phrasing or drafting. Some
of the objections which had been submitted contained
proposals which in the view of the Home Office and
of himself and of his learned junior were ultra vires.
They appeared also in one or two other cases throughout
the objections. Perhaps he might illustrate it by regula-
tion 86 which refer to signalling. The Act of Parliament
laid down in simple and explicit terms that there
was to be a definite code of signalling established, and
the effect of the owners’ proposals, he submitted, was
to omit this code that the Home Office had prepared in
conformity with instructions under the Act, and to
substitute for it a regulation repealing the statutory
requirements. He was only saying now that at the time
when that regulation came forward, he would submit
that such a proposition would be ultra vires.

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis said that if his
objections were taken first, and if he were allowed to
call attention to the principal amendments suggested,
then he saw no objection to taking them clause by
clause.

Mr. Tryon said he represented a separate district
having special conditions. The witnesses who would
have to speak on that subject were practically engaged
in their business as colliery managers, and if their
objections were scattered here and there throughout the
whole of the rules, it would be an extremely inconvenient
thing if they, in respect of that particular district,
which alone had a particular seam of coal over 30 ft.
thick, had to be there all the time. Some of his sugges-
tions would be that some of these rules should not apply
to districts in South Staffordshire and East Worcester-
shire.

Mr. Pope said he thought that perhaps the South
Staffordshire case might be dealt with separately.

The Referee said he thought it would be a very
convenient thing if each prepared a statement of objec-
tions to the regulations. If it was desired to say
anything further, it would be convenient to put it into
writing and to hand it in. He doubted very much
whether a large number of witnesses were likely to
assist very much. ;

Mr. Smillie said that Staffordshire and Worcester-
shire for some special reason wished to be exempted
from these regulations. He would like to hear publicly
the reasons for that.

Sir Thomas Ratcliffe-Ellis said he had had
printed the regulations which were objected to, and he
had put in brackets the amendments made by the
Mining Association, showing the words they desired to
have omitted from the regulations, and in italics the
words they desired to have added to the regulations. It
was rather more convenient than taking the objections
and applying them to the clauses. He had also shown
in the margin the amendments which they have agreed
with the Miners’ Federation, and with the Home Office,
as well as the amendments agreed with the Miners’
Federation, but not with the Home Office. There were
some which both sides had agreed to. There were some
which had been agreed by the miners and the employers,
but which the Home Office had not agreed, and there
was certainly one very important [one with regard to
which they would support very considerably the Home
Office, but which would be opposed by the Miners’
Federation. A number of the amendments depended
upon technical experts giving their views upon
them. On Regulation 5 the amendments which
they proposed were disciplinary regulations ; they
provided who should do a particular kind of work.
The Act of 1887 was repealed except so far as regards
some clauses which were not repealed, but for the
purposes of their enquiry the Act was repealed. Under
section 49 of that Act there was a provision for the
making of what were termed general rules—that was,
rules providing for safety in the working of a mine.
They were all rules providing as to what should be done
and not as to who should do it. Those general rules
were to be applicable to the whole of the coalfields of
the kingdom, and they were unalterable except by Act
of Parliament. But it was quite clear that that was not
sufficient. It was not sufficient to say what should be
done, but it was necessary to go into some further
details as to who should do it; and section 50 of that
Act provided that there should be established in every
mine special rules for the guidance and the discipline
and the safety of the men employed in those mines.
After that special rules were established throughout the
whole of the mines of the kingdom, and they very
soon fell into this position—that with regard to the
inspector of the district, all the collieries in his district
had the same code of special rules. There were some
few exceptions, but generally that was the case. The
special rules made under section 50 were made in the
way the Act proposed they should be made, but it was
competent for either the Home Office or the owner of
the mine to make an alteration in those special rules,
and if the Home Office and the owner did not agree to
the proposed alteration there was a provision that it
should be decided by arbitration. Those special rules
were established for every mine in the kingdom, and he
would take one as an example. One set of special rules
was established for Yorkshire and Lancashire, and in
those rules it was prescribed what the manager should
do, and what the under-manager, the firemen, the
deputies, the enginemen, and the boiler-minders should
do. Then came a special set of rules for miners, work-
men and others, and in those rules what the workman
had to do was set out, and not merely as it was proposed
by these rules what the official had to do. Now reference
had been made to the Royal Commission report, and it
was rather suggested by the learned counsel, as far as
he understood, that if there were anything found in this
report which should be inconsistent with any amend-
ments which were now being suggested, the report
should weigh. The members of the Royal Commission
did their best with the evidence and the information
they had before them, but he put it that if the Referee
were satisfied that upon any matter affecting safety
the Royal Commission went wrong that was no
reason why, when there was an opportunity of altering
the rules, that mistake should be perpetuated. There
was one very short sentence that he would like to read
from the Royal Commission Report on the special
rules, it was on page 177, and it was this : “ In all the
codes the rules imposing duties upon particular
classes of officials are grouped together, and this is
desirable as it enables men to acquaint themselves
more readily with their special duties.” That was
the practice in the special rules ; but in addition
to the officials being acquainted with their duties, the
special rules, as they existed before the passing of the
Act of 1911, acquainted the men also with their duties.
In the rules which had been put forward by the Home
Office, there were provisions describing what the manager
had to do, what the under-manager had to do, what the
firemen and deputies had to do, and, indeed, what the
boiler-minder had to do, but there was nothing expressly
imposing upon the workman his duty, and they suggested
it was very important that the principle adopted in the
old special rule should be followed, and that it was
necessary for maintaining the discipline of the mine that
the workmen’s attention should be called, not from
inference from some other rule, but by a direct obliga-
tion being put upon him by the rule itself as to what he
had to do, and how he should do it. There had hitherto
been rules directing an ordinary workman as to what he
should do. He would read one rule with regard to the
Yorkshire and Lancashire district. That was Rule 100:
“ The miners must build good pack walls and set a