§ [The references are to Bill No. 78.]
§
Clause 2, page 2, line 24, at end, insert:
("Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed as conferring on the Board any power to give a direction in relation to any matter regulated by or under the Coal Mines Act, 1911, or by or under any other enactment relating to the control or management of a mine within the meaning of that Act.")
§ The Commons disagree to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
§ Because the Amendment is unduly restrictive as respects directions which it might be expedient for the Board of Trade to give for securing safety.
§
THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment in Clause 2, page 2, line 24, but proposes in lieu thereof the following Amendment:
Clause 2, page 2, line 24, at end insert:
Provided that nothing in this subsection shall be construed as conferring on the Board any power to give a direction inconsistent with any provisions of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, or of any other enactment relating to the control or management of a mine within the meaning of that Act, or of any regulations made under that Act or any such other enactment.
§
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move, That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment, and I propose an Amendment in lieu thereof—namely, in Clause 2, page 2, line 24, at the end thereof, to insert the words as printed. This Amendment on behalf of the Government is due to the fact that the previous proviso was one which might have had the effect of preventing the Coal Commission from exercising any function under the Coal Mines Act of 1911, or any other enactment, relating to the control or management of mines. It was accepted with a sort of understanding that the drafting might have to be considered, and in another place the reason
843
given for not assenting to the proviso was that it was
unduly restrictive as regards directions which it might be expedient for the Board of Trade to give for securing safety.
I think it is uncontroversial that in this House nobody wants the Board of Trade to be prevented from giving directions to secure safety, and after a good deal of negotiation and consideration the proviso which stands on the Paper in the form of an Amendment has been suggested in lieu of the previous proviso. This, I think, and I understand other people take the same view, carries out what was desired by noble Lords who in this House thought that some such proviso ought to be inserted to Clause 2. It is only a question of carrying out the true intention in that respect, and I submit to your Lordships that this Amendment does carry out what was originally intended. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment, in Clause 2, page 2, line 24, but proposes in lieu thereof the said new Amendment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ LORD GAINFORDMy Lords, I think the words of the Amendment on the Paper do prevent dual responsibility, which might have existed under the Bill when it was brought to this House. So far as I am able to say so, on behalf of the coalowners and the Mining Association of Great Britain, we do accept the Amendment and thank the Government for its wording.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.