Minutes of evidence taken before the Royal Commission on metalliferous mines and quarries : volume 1.

  • Great Britain. Royal Commission on Metalliferous Mines and Quarries.
Date:
1912
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Minutes of evidence taken before the Royal Commission on metalliferous mines and quarries : volume 1. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

    61/406 page 53
    7 July 1910.] Mr. J. S. Martin. [Continued. 1577. In doing that he would have regard to whether those foreign countries gave similar oppor- tunities to Englishmen ?—That would he a matter of further negotiation. I do not see why our men should be excluded : I mean only our own men. 1 do not mean foreigners in this case. 1578. If a foreigner had had experience partly abroad and partly in England, and was a capable man, would you allow him to lie a certificated manager P— Personally I would, if he passed an examination. 1579. I suppose if foreign service in a foreign mine was to count in getting an English certificate, it would be fair to ask in the same way in foreign countries that they should allow service in an English mine to count towards getting their certificates ?—Yes. I think the English certificate ought to be exchangeable in that case. 1580. (Mr. Redmayne.) Without being a naturalised British subject, just as we would expect them to allow one of our countrymen P—-Yes. 1581. (Chairman.) Your opinion is that naturalisa- tion should have nothing to do with it ?—Nothing. 1582. Would you require a certificated manager in all the small mines of the country P—I further qualify the granting of certificates. I think where parties possess the diploma or school certificate for the full mining corn-se at any University or Mining School approved of by the Secretary of State, together with satisfactory practical mining experience of the general working of a mine, for a period to be fixed—in working I do not mean merely manual work in one department, I mean the general experiences which are met with in the management of a mine—a certificate might very well be granted. Of course the example of the Coal Mines Act would have to be followed in the first place, namely, that persons who have been acting as managers of mines employing a certain number of men would receive certificates of service. 1583. So as to protect the vested interests ?—Yes ; and those men who have the diplomas and experience which I have referred to might now be granted certifi- cates, I think. The nomination of a certificated manager should be required for mines of sufficient importance, or for a group of mines if smaller. In many cases there are small mines that might be put down as individual mines, and yet they are grouped under one owner. 1584. There you would require a certificate P—Yes. 1585. For small individual mines you would like a competent person ?—Yes. Certificated managers could not be expected for all mines, but even for small ones a competent person should be nominated as responsible. 1586. At present you have no definite person to look to ?—No. 1587. (Mr. Greaves.) However small, that is ?—A competent person should be nominated for that mine. 1588. (Mr. Ainsworth.) Do you mean he should be nominated with the approval of the inspector ?—He should be nominated on the responsibility of the owner to the inspector. 1589. With the approval of the inspector P 1590. (Chairman.) I do not think it is suggested the inspector should have any share in approving him. The owner has an absolute right to nominate a competent person. The only thing to be done is this, if he were notoriously incompetent, that would be a breach of the Act, and proceedings could be taken. Is not that your meaning ?—Yes. It would be open to the inspector to object, the same as an ordinary danger not provided for. 1591. The inspector would not be put in the position of approving and being responsible for the appointment; that is for the owner ?—Yes, that is my view. 1592. (Mr. Greaves.) This manager need not be certificated?—No, a competent person for the mine he is managing. 1593. (Mr. Thomas.) The suggestion of a nomina- tion is that you may have some responsible man to refer to and such nominated man need not be for approval?—Yes, that is so. 1594. (Mr. Redmayne.) The term used in the Metalliferous Mines Act is agent. At present there is no obligation on the part of the owner to appoint an agent. He may inferentiaily, under section41, appoint an agent to look after part or the whole of the mine. Would you or would you not adopt something like the wording of section 28 of the Coal Mines Act which deals with certified managers P It says every mine shall be under a manager appointed by the owner?—Yes, under other words, I think. 1595. The present wording of the Metalliferous Mines Act is extremely loose P—You could not say a mines manager should be appointed under the Metalli- ferous Mines Act for every mine ; it must be a manager or competent person. The wording would have to be drawn up to meet the case. 1596. Supposing there was a metalliferous mine, the owners of which let the driving of a water level to a contractor, who would be responsible?—The owners. 1597. But the owner may say, “ I delegated the “ overlooking of the work to a contractor, who is the “ agent?—No. 1598. It is a moot point P—That should not be so. That man is nothing more or less than an employe, in my opinion. 1599. (Chairman.) That is what he ought to be. There is no law at present P—If he nominates someone as the manager or a competent person to supervise it, that competent person would be responsible. 1600. (Mr. Greaves.) For that particular part: — That particular mine. 1601. That particular job, when let to a sub- contractor ?—Yes. but that would not do away with the owner’s responsibility. 1602. (Mr. Redmayne.) I want to be clear about that, the difference between a particular part of a mine and the whole mine ?—That would not remove the responsibility of the owner. 1603. The competent person must be manager for the whole mine ?—Yes. 1604. And not of a particular part only ?—No. 1605. (Mr. Greaves.) What is the practice in the question of railway contracts, a contractor undertaking to make a railway; is the railway or the individual responsible P—I cannot tell you. If you go into mining and say a contractor is to be a responsible person, you bring it down to the fact that every miner that is working there at 57,. a fathom for driving a level is a responsible person irrespective of the owner, which would be absurd. In the same way under the Coal Mines Act, if it were read or interpreted as under the Act that every contractor was the respon- sible person, every coal-cutter would be a responsible person without any right of supervision above him which would be absurd. 1606. Supposing a number of mines combined to- gether to drive a drainage level, would each of the managers of those mines be separately and individually responsible, or would the contractor, supposing it was let to a big firm to drive a tunnel ?—The syndicate would be responsible. 1607. Not the contractor P—The contractor would be responsible to the syndicate. 1608. In case of an accident ?—The syndicate should provide supervision. (Mr. Redmayne.) Through a manager. 1609. (Mr. Thomas.) When a company determines to sink a shaft, they let that shaft to a responsible contractor; does the contractor not undertake entire responsibility ?—No. he is under the responsibility of the manager. 1610. But if they agree to take entire responsibility as far as workmen’s compensation is concerned ?— That is a matter between themselves. He holds the same position as a contractor for driving a level or getting coal in a working place. He is a contractor for that at so much a ton; the other is at so much a fathom. Supervision rests -with the manager—the owner, agent, or manager. 1611. (Mr. Greaves.) In the case of a group of mines combining to make a railway and letting the con- struction of the railway, would the syndicate of the mines be responsible then ?—That depends on whether it would lie within the mine or not. 1612. (Mr. Redmayne.) Within the mine premises ? —Within the purview of the Mines Act or not.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3