§ Lords Amendment:
§
In page 11, line 43, at the end, to insert as a new Sub-section:
(3) Sub-section (5) of Section twenty of the Mining Industry Act, 1920, is hereby repealed.
§ Colonel LANE FOXI beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It is proposed to insert this new Subsection in order to remedy a misapprehension which arose during the Debate on the Report stage. The original Subsection which also repealed Section 77 of the Act of 1911 was then moved out and it is desired to put back this particular portion of it. The Section to which it refers deals with the question of pit-head baths. Under Section 77 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, when first the principle of pit-head baths was considered by this House, a system was suggestea, but never came into operation, owing to certain limitations which were prescribed, namely, that where the cost was estimated to exceed 3d. per man per week, it should not be possible for those working in the pit to demand those baths. If the cost was estimated to be below that 2958 figure, then it was possible for the men working in the pit by a two-third majority to demand that baths should be set up. It is not necessary to maintain the rest of the original Sub-section because under the present system pit-head baths are to be provided from an addition to the welfare fund. We desire that the system should continue to the same lines. The provision of the baths under the welfare fund is working admirably. The various conditions, various circumstances, and various possibilities of different localities have all been met by agreement, and there is no possibility now of ever getting back to the very low rate estimated in the Coal Mines Act of 1911. The rate of 3d. per man per week will never be possible again, and at present the experience of the pit-head baths now in operation shows that the cost is about 1s. That does not include interest on capital owing to the fact that capital is provided by the welfare fund, and of course it will now be provided by the increase in the welfare fund. In these circumstances it is far better than the present welfare system, which is working admirably, should not be upset by going back to 1911, and we hope and desire that the present system of pit-head baths will be maintained in the same spirit of co-operation and good will.
§ Mr. S. WALSHWe quite agree that Section 77 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, should still remain intact.
§ Mr. BATEYLet us be quite clear on this point. What is the object of the Lords Amendment, if Section 77 of the 1911 Act is still intact? I understood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that we were not leaving in Section 77.
§ Colonel LANE FOXThe hon. Member is wrong. I tried to explain that we are not trying to repeal Section 77 of the Act of 1911.
§ 11.0 P.M.
§ Mr. BATEYOn Report, the Government proposed an Amendment, which we opposed on the ground that under the 1911 Act the workmen had the privilege of taking a ballot, and if two-thirds of them agreed, they could call upon the owner to erect pit-head baths, provided that the maintenance did not cost more than 3d. per man per week. The 2959 Government gave way to our opposition, and now I understand the Lords have reversed that position.
§ Colonel LANE FOXNo.