§ *MR. HENRY BROADHURST (Leicester)
I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can inform the House as to what portions of the building trades would come under the 624 protection of the Workmen (Compensation for Accidents) Bill; and under what circumstances operatives in the building trade would be excluded from its benefits?
§ SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY
Persons engaged in building works will come under the Bill or not according as steam machinery or the like is or is not used in the construction of the works. The distinction proposed in the Bill is roughly that which exists in the present law between factories and workshops, and further details are, I venture to think, questions for the Committee on the Bill.
§ *SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucester, Forest of Dean)
I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the event of the passing, during the present Session, of the Workmen (Compensation for Accidents) Bill, the Government will undertake to propose legislation on, similar lines in next Session with regard to seamen?
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.
The Government quite recognise the importance of the Question, raised by the right hon. Baronet, but I should be sorry to give any pledge with regard to the legislation we shall propose next Session.
§ MR. J. HAVELOCK WILSON (Middlesbrough)
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government will be prepared to extend the Act of 1880 to seamen this Session?
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY
No, Sir; I do not think we can bring in a second Compensation Bill this Session.