Gresford disaster memorial bears the names of the victims. This video can not be played To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser. Ruby McBurney says children of the victims did not understand what had happened. Families of the men who died re-live the impact of the tragedy.
A service was held at the memorial which stands on the site of the former colliery. Related Topics. Published 22 September Published 5 June Published 25 May The same kind of procedure is adopted by the inspectors who inspect on behalf of the workmen.
Evidence was given on this point for the Miners' Federation by Mr. Emmerson, who was asked how he did the examinations in Durham. He said that the number of inspections depended upon the conditions of the colliery.
The colliery that stood fairly well would not have as many inspections as the colliery below par. That is exactly the same principle as that adopted by His Majesty's inspectors.
A colliery which has a good reputation, whose accident record has nothing to indicate that it is in a particular zone of danger, is treated in exactly the same way as the workmen's inspector treats it. If the record is good, the colliery will not have as many inspections as one that is below par.
If there are no complaints, I suppose that the workmen's inspector, too, acts upon his own judgment. There were no complaints about Gresford. The accident record up to this disastrous time was good—if you can use such a phrase about any accident record. When I say "good," I mean it was a better record than that of the whole country or for that district.
This colliery got its full share of the inspector's time. As we find on page 91 of the Commissioner's Report, it got its full share of inspection at the rate of rather more than one a month. To return to the point I was making about a thorough examination once a year, the hon. Gentleman dealt with a district called the 14's district. Let us take that as an example. In his Report the assessor, Mr.
Jones, calls that district a "veritable gasometer. Dominy, was in that very district on the 21st March, He made tests and he found no gas. There was no suggestion then that there was anything wrong. In April, the Commissioner points out in his Report, there was trouble at the "top end," and in May the situation had got such that, in his view, a drastic remedy was needed. An inspection once a year, supposing that inspection had been in March, would not have helped that contingency.
I know what a thorough inspection means. The point here is that there was an inspection which showed that there was no gas. Dominy on his own evidence did not go to 14's to look for gas. He went there to visit the scene of an accident, and he went nowhere else. I never said for what purpose he went there. I said that he went there, and, according to the Commissioner's Report on page 45, he made tests for gas and found no gas.
He had had no complaints made to him. He was in this district, whatever the reason, and tested for gas in March. Things got rapidly worse, and yet no one mentioned it to the junior inspector. He was back in the pit for one reason or another in May, June, twice in July, and in September, but nothing was said to him about this rapidly deteriorating position.
He was in exactly the same position as any other inspector who has to decide where he will make his investigation or inspection. He went to the place and he heard no bad report of this particular pit, which was certainly not the worst pit of those which were in his inspecting area.
Do I gather that that was not the worst pit that was under Mr. I do not think it was, by any manner of means. As I said, I think it had had a fairly good record. The hon. Gentleman opposite stressed the position in regard to the inspectors. They are the people for whom I answer in this House and the next question which arises is whether or not they have sufficient powers to deal with this problem.
The indictment here in the Report about the general ventilation position is that the lay-out was bad, that there were too few air ways and that ventilation plans were neglected and so on. If hon. Members study the Act of they will find, as has been made clear in the Report, that the only test which the law requires is the test of Section 29 which judges ventilation entirely by, results as to whether it is adequate or not.
That test was made by the inspector and the results showed that even in this district, which was afterwards shown to be so dangerous, there was nothing for complaint. It may be that greater powers should be given to the inspectors. That is one of the points upon which we hope to get advice from the Royal Commission, but at the moment on the question of ventilation it is entirely by results that the inspectors have to test these matters and by the results, in this case, there was nothing for Mr.
Donimy to report upon. The other problem which comes up is whether the general organisation of the inspection districts is right. The present organisation was the result of the Royal Commission of and there again, for advice as to the future, we must await the report of the present Royal Commission.
The House will remember that the setting up of that Royal Commission was one of the important points in the Government's programme dealing with coal at the last General Election and one of the first things that we did when this Parliament met was to set up that Commission. It has been working very hard under the distinguished chairmanship of Lord Rockley.
This Report has been circulated to the members of the Commission and no doubt, in any advice or recommendations which they make, they will take account of all that is said in the Report. But I think that on these particular points as to the powers, the responsibilities and the districts of the inspectors, we must await what they have to say after taking all the evidence. Of course that Commission was set up after this disaster occurred and therefore this was one of the points which was in mind.
Another point with regard to the inspectors is the position of individual inspectors, and perhaps I may be allowed to say something upon that matter, because the remarks of Mr. Jones the assessor in the Report are of such a sweeping nature that I could not pass them over without comment.
He says, on page , that the evidence reveals that the visits were both "insufficient and ineffective. Brass, makes no comment. Therefore I hope I am right in assuming that he concurs in the views of the Commissioner. The Commissioner, in the first place, on page 89, does not accept the statement which was made by counsel that the inspectors "naturally desired to, minimise any adverse features in the condition of the mine.
Secondly, he does not accept the statement that the inspectors, equally with the management and the deputies, were "responsible for the explosion. It is not, I consider, an occasion for any disciplinary action. After all, these three inspectors, like all other inspectors, are and were during all this time, very hard-worked men with many responsibilities for many mines. Gresford was not the only one with which they were concerned.
They are no more infallible, I imagine than any of the rest of us and as I have said the indications which they received were to the effect that Gresford had a fairly good record. They had no particular reason to be suspicious of it. They had no particular reason to have any less confidence in the manager of that pit than they had generally in the managers of pits and it is the manager and not the inspector who is the person responsible for the safety of a pit.
It is possible on the evidence adduced that if more time had been devoted by the inspectors to examining all the records as regards ventilation, shot-firing or stone-dust prima facie they might have seen that there was something which required immediate investigation.
On the other hand, I should be very slow to lay it down that the bulk of inspecting must consist of looking through plans and records in the colliery offices. If that were so, we should very soon have complaints the other way round and questions as to why the inspectors did not come down the pits. It is difficult for the inspector, upon whom the responsibility rests, to decide upon balance which is the best way to do the inspecting. Charlton is a divisional inspector and it would be doing much less than justice to him or to any other inspectors to say that he and they only deal with things about which they have legal powers.
Everybody in the mining world knows that by influence and persuasion the inspectors are able to achieve a great deal for the safety and health of the workers—far in excess of anything they can do merely by acting as policemen. Charlton has had a very wide experience. He was the divisional inspector in the Swansea area before he was where he now is and it is my intention that he should continue in his present post.
The senior inspector, Mr. Boyden, has not had such wide experience. He was senior inspector in the Midland and Southern district for nine years and he has been in his present district for seven and a-half years. He is now nearing the age of retirement and a junior inspector will shortly be promoted to take his place in the North-Western division. In the few remaining months of his service he will be employed on special duties elsewhere. Dominy came from Scotland where he had had very good reports previously.
He came here in order to get wider experience before the time when he might be promoted to a senior inspectorship and he was stationed in North Wales to get that experience. Having, to the best of my ability, reviewed all the circumstances, I am unable to find justification for the severity of some of the criticisms directed against him during the inquiry. I feel that while he is a good inspector he may be, like many others of us, a bad witness, especially when it comes to being cross-examined by the hon.
The fact that one is not very good in the witness-box does not necessarily mean that one is not good at one's job. The reports which I have had since on Mr. Dominy confirm me in my opinion that, while it was desirable from all points of view that he should not stay in North Wales after all this, there is nothing against him in the work which he is now doing.
This has been a matter of great anxiety to me and I hope the House will take it from me that if I thought there was any occasion for disciplinary action I would take such action.
I recognise that in times of stress and emotion like this there is a natural tendency in the minds of many people to try to find a scapegoat. I do not wish to find a scapegoat and none of these three inspectors should be made a scapegoat.
If I allowed myself to be swayed by any attempts of that kind I should be doing less than justice to a very hard-working body of public officials. So much for the inspectors, and I do not want to keep the House much longer.
But I must say something about the third point which I mentioned, namely, the present and the immediate future and the amendment of the law. I have pointed out, I think with sufficient clearness, that the big matters must await the advice which we will get from the Royal Commission and that advice will be taken into immediate consideration in order that we may make our pro- posals to this House as to what ought to be done. I am sure that in any case but still more after this event, the House will have no hesitation in conforming to our wishes when the time comes.
The question is whether there is not anything in this Report as to which something might be done, even in anticipation, and perhaps the House would be interested to know something about that aspect of the question. The first thing to be considered is whether there may have been and whether there is revealed in the Report any defect of organisation. I have dealt with that by a general instruction to all inspectors. They have each received a copy of the Report for personal study. They have received instructions as to how they are to act when taking over a fresh appointment or on transfer, a matter about which something is said in the Report.
Those instructions have been very clearly laid down by me. They have also received fresh instructions as to examining the reports and records at colliery offices. They have received fresh instructions—and this is a new point—as to examining ventilation records and plans, and if they see anything in the plans to which they think the attention of their superior officers should be directed it is incumbent upon them to do so.
That is a new responsibility placed upon them as a result of this Report. And they have also received fresh instructions about ensuring the proper taking of stonedust samples. That is what I have been able to do with the inspectors.
Beyond that, I am considering drafting regulations under the powers which I possess. Here may I say in parenthesis that I have made it clear to the Royal Commission that anything which is done at this time is purely ad interim and is not to be taken, in any way, as prejudging their recommendations. Nor indeed are these regulations intended to deal with the most important things but with things which arise at the moment because they are specifically mentioned in the Report on the disaster.
We should be failing in our duty, even though they are not the most important things, if we did not proceed to deal with them. The regulations then which I am drafting deal first of all with the use of telephones and bells and secondly with the question of fire precautions and the question, for example, of having dumps of sand or stone dust in certain specific places. While I am not in a position at the moment to give details they will also deal with certain points about tire fighting organisation which might be adopted and practices which might be used in the mines for helping to deal with outbreaks of fire.
There will also be new regulations dealing with stone dusting, and the question of keeping plans to show the places where samples have been taken, and, secondly, laying down that where the volatile content is over 20 per cent. Those regulations are in process of being drafted and will be submitted to the Royal Commission before they are put into effect, I must, shortly without prejudice to the Commission's recommendations for fundamental changes of the law. Overtime cannot be dealt with by regulations.
That is entirely another matter. Member for Gower will notice that I have not referred to his Motion at all. That is not out of discourtesy to him, because I think that he will have realised from what I have said how much I sympathise with it.
I want the House to accept it. I do not want there to be any division of opinion between the two sides of the House on a matter of this kind. It will be easier for us if the hon. Member, instead of saying in his Motion, "to prevent such disasters" would say, "to try to prevent," because while the Legislature is a Sovereign Legislature there are things called "acts of God" which cannot really—[ Interruption ]. I do not press it, but it would be nice if he would change the wording, though I would rather accept the Motion as it stands than have any difference of opinion.
I would make it clear, of course, that when he speaks of "immediate and effective measures" the word "immediate" is understood in the way that I have said, that regulations on certain points are being drafted, but that the larger matters must inevitably await the Report of the Royal Commission.
As we all know, the life of the miner is one of very great danger all the time and, as far as that goes, so is the life of many other workers, but, of course, they do not spend their lives in quite the same difficult set of circumstances as do the miners.
It is true, of course, and it is just as well to remember it, that many miners follow an almost hereditary craft, that the son succeeds the father, and, indeed, that many of them look upon a life of risk as a real he-man's life. Still, in spite of that, in spite of all that modern science can do, you cannot breathe the fresh air and have light and sunshine in the pit. In spite of all that modern science can do in the way of teaching man to try to control his environment, at the end of it all immense forces of nature may be released which may crush him, or burn him, or blow him up.
And he cannot depend merely upon himself for his safety. His safety does so much depend upon the help and co-operation and attention of so many other people over whom he, as an individual, has little control, and unless they all play their part—and that is the point I would make—the individual's risk is doubled, trebled or multiplied almost to infinity. Of course, everybody was shocked at the news of this catastrophe, and many, no doubt, have been shocked at the statements which are made in this Report, but I hope that as a result of the study of the Report we shall learn any lessons that we can from this catastrophe.
This is not really a time for bitterness; it is a time for grief, but not for bitterness. Out of this catastrophe let us try to increase our scientific knowledge, let us try to improve our administrative system, if it can be improved, let us try to strengthen the law, if there are weaknesses; because that is the only way in which we can afford any consolation that it is in our power to offer to those who are bereaved—that is the assurance that Parliament's endeavour, so far as Parliament can influence such things, will be to limit the field of danger for present and for future generations of mining men.
That seems to me to be the task before us all in the light of this Report and of the Debate to which it has tragically but inevitably given rise. I am sure the House will join in the tribute which the Minister paid to the very able speech in which my hon. Friend introduced this Motion. By reason of his experience as a mine worker, as well as by reason of his intimate association with this inquiry, there was no one more fitted to initiate the discussion.
He was able to speak as a man with expert knowledge, and the Minister of Mines, if he has not himself practical experience as a mine worker, at least has behind him the authority and the experience of a great Department, and he necessarily referred to some matters of a technical character.
It may, therefore, be appropriate if, at this stage, I seek to intervene as one with no expert knowledge, for the purpose of emphasising what I think he wants emphasised, and that is one or two broad issues of policy which are raised by the tragedy and by the Report of the inquiry.
First I want the House to bear in mind that one of the things Which Parliament does, and which I think it is glad to do, is to make provision in Acts of Parliament for such safeguards as are practicable for protecting and safeguarding the lives of those engaged in dangerous occupations in this country.
It has done that for the mining industry. The importance of the industry to the wellbeing and, indeed, to the security of the nation, and an appreciation of the hazards and hardships which that industry imposes upon those engaged in it, have all conduced to that end, and when Parliament makes provisions of that character it is entitled to expect that they shall be put into operation.
The first thing which is obvious to anybody who has studied the Report is that that expectation was very far from having been realised in the case of the Gresford Colliery. I will take as an illustration, and as an illustration only, the part of the Report which deals with ventilation.
To adopt the word of the Minister, one is "shocked" by the sort of thing which has come out in this inquiry. One need not be an expert to realise that proper ventilation is of essential importance not only to the efficiency of a mine but to the safety of those working in it. It is because of that elementary fact that the Coal Mines Act, , in Part II, which is concerned with the provisions for safety, starts off with a series of sections dealing with ventilation.
It calls upon those who are carrying on the industry to provide reports and returns for the Ministry, but the Report of Sir Henry Walker shows that at Gresford in the two months immediately preceding this disaster no proper reports were made, and in regard to previous months he is driven to the conclusion that a lot of the alleged records which are set out in the prescribed form required by Act of Parliament were fictitious; in other words, they were of no use.
Although that is a serious matter I use it merely as an illustration, because it is not the most serious part of the Report. A graver aspect of the matter is that there seems to be a great deal of uncertainty as to the value of those reports when they are made, and I should like the Minister, or whoever replies, to tell us what is the purpose of these reports and returns for which the Department calls, and what use it makes of them when it gets them.
I ask that question because I notice that the divisional inspector is reported to have said that even when these records are obtained and are sent on to the Mines Department they are used merely for statistical purposes and not for control purposes. I should like to know a little more of what that means. If these reports are not of any practical value we might as well allow the industry to carry on without the necessity of making them, because they obviously involve a good deal of time and labour.
If they are of no use, drop them: but if they are of use it is the duty of the Department to see that they are stringently accurate and that use is made of them. There is a yet more serious aspect of the same matter, even when these reports and returns are sent to the Ministry, and that is, are they adequate for the purpose which the framers of the Coal Mines Act, , must have had in mind when imposing the necessity for making those returns? I ask that because I feel very much concerned as to one part of Sir Henry Walker's Report, in which he says that these reports, in so far as they refer to air measurements, are no indication that there does exist an adequacy of ventilation in the mines.
The Coal Mines Act, , says that an adequate amount of ventilation shall be constantly produced in every mine to dilute and render harmless inflammable and noxious gases. He says: So long as the ventilation complies with that provision the present law does not concern itself with any question whether the system and method of ventilation are workmanlike and efficient or, indeed, whether there is any method or any system at all.
That is borne out by the statement made by the divisional inspector, reported in page 91 of the Report. He says: If ventilation, judged by the absence of gas, is adequate, the Inspectors have no power to deal with such matters as large leakages of air and small size of return airways.
In other words, there is no adequate machinery for ensuring that the ventilation of a mine is adequate for any other purpose than that of complying with the provisions of a particular Section of one Act of Parliament, and that is a matter of very serious moment. I understand that it is being considered at the present time by the Royal Commission, and it seems to me that it calls for urgent and effective treatment.
I said, in regard to that portion of the Report which deals with ventilation, that it is made abundantly clear that there was a breach of existing regulations, and that there is no certainty whether existing regulations are sufficient for the purpose.
I think it is not exaggerating to say that we find the same thing in regard to every other part of the Report, whatever may be the subject. I do not want to go through all those matters in detail, because there are others more competent to do that than I am, and I pass on to a part of the Report, to which the Minister himself referred, dealing with shot firing and hours of work.
In this matter we have admittedly had for months continuing breaches of the law. So far as I can see, the only excuse is that the workmen themselves must have been parties to those breaches of the law, but that cannot be condoned, by whomsoever they were committed.
It does not matter whether the workmen were contributing parties or not; the important thing is that there were breaches of the law in regard to two matters which were of essential importance to the safety of the workers themselves. The suggestion is made that the workers were induced—I put it that way—to condone those offences because of the fear of victimisation. I want to be frank about this matter.
When I hear sugges- tions of victimisation I am inclined to approach them, I will not say with suspicion, but rather critically. A policy of victimisation is not only cruel and unfair but is silly from the point of view of those who practise it. It is bound to lead in the end to dissatisfaction, inefficiency, and, finally, disaster. I must confess that I am alarmed to find in another part of the Report references which seem to bear out very strongly the suggestion that there is victimisation, certainly so far as this particular colliery was concerned.
Sir Henry Walker points out that it had for some weeks, if not months, been clear that certain improvements ought to have been effected in the mines. He asked himself why those reforms were not effected, and he makes the very curious suggestion that the manager or the under-manager was afraid to report the defects to the inspectors because to do so might have been considered a disloyal act.
Are we to be told that responsible officials engaged in the coal-mining industry in this country are not to make reports on matters affecting the safety of the mines because they will be told that they have been guilty of disloyal acts? That is a very serious suggestion to make. Sir Henry Walker does not leave it there, because he says, on page Means should be evolved ….
That is one of the most damning statements that I have ever heard in regard to the management and control of any industry, and I would ask the Minister to tell us whether he thinks there is any justification for that statement by Sir Henry Walker.
Sir Henry is a very experienced man, and he heard this inquiry over a large number of days. Does the Minister think that if that is true in regard to Gresford Colliery it is also true of other mines in this country? If so, it is a most dangerous situation to exist in an industry where the safety and lives of the working people are daily in peril. I believe that there is another explanation why supervision and management in Gresford were hopelessly inadequate and inefficient.
I do not want to turn anybody out of a job, but the position of manager of a coal mine involves so much work that it should not be occupied by persons who are over a certain age, or are lacking in that activity and energy which must obviously be expended if the manager of a coal mine is to do his job properly.
In spite of what the Minister said about a large inspectorate—I appreciate that he is compelled to defend the interests of the inspectors—it is clear from the Report that the inspectors, if they were not inefficient, were inadequate in numbers for the proper supervision of the mines in the area in which Gresford was situated.
That is practically admitted, and is stressed by Sir Henry Walker. If there is a job for inspectors to do it is the duty of the Minister to see that there are sufficient inspectors to do it, and that the inspectors are efficient in that job. The only other matter to which I would refer is a consideration which presented itself to my mind when I read the Report, and that was that this form of tribunal is not the most suitable or the most competent to inquire into disasters of this character.
So far as I am aware, no charge is made, and I am not making a charge, which involves any question against the impartiality of Sir Henry Walker, but in a matter of this sort it really is not quite right that the inquiry should be entrusted to a gentleman who is, after all, an official, and a very responsible official, of the Minister, who ultimately has to accept and defend his responsibility.
Inquiry by an official of the Ministry is insufficient for the Minister, it must be embarrassing for the Chief Inspector, and it may be very unfair to some of his colleagues in the Ministry. It is unsatisfactory to the industry, and I believe that it is unsatisfactory to the public. The public are entitled to be considered in this matter. There is a common saying, and a very true one, that it is of the utmost importance not only that justice should be done but that the public should appreciate that justice is being done.
If that applies to the administration of justice in a court of law in this country, it applies also where an inquiry is being conducted into a matter which shocked the public of the country by reason of the tremendous suffering which was endured.
Related Topics. Wrexham Gresford. Published 22 September Published 5 June Published 25 May After a long campaign, a memorial was unveiled in The colliery has gone, but the disaster lives on in people's memories.
The fate of the Gresford miners captured the nation's sympathy on September 22nd It has never lost it. The disaster has an iconic status. Poems and plays have been written in English and Welsh. These responses have been heartfelt and nostalgic, but frequently also highly political.
Performances in of Ewan MacColl and Joan Littlewood's The Last Edition , a radical play about the disaster, were halted by the police and the producers fined for breach of the peace. The disaster has become the most memorable date in Wrexham's history.
0コメント