§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ Mr. J. W. WILSONIt is rather difficult to understand the Bill as printed, and perhaps we might have some explanation of the measure. Insurance for explosion covers a much wider area than an ordinary fire risk, and I want to know whether third parties are protected, and whether in this Bill is included the taking over of that important risk on behalf of the Government, so that claims shall be more promptly met. Will the Government have power to charge certain premiums as against the contractors, and then take over the liabilities which otherwise would only rest against the contractors or the firm in whose works the explosion occurred?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway)I am sure the House will sympathise with me in the position in which I 987 find myself. The Second Reading of this Bill was to have been moved by the Minister of Munitions, but, as the House knows, he, for the time, is not a Member. Only a few minutes ago I had a message to say that I was expected to move the Second Reading, and it was for that reason I did not rise, and I had hoped that it would not be necessary. I think, however, that I am sufficiently acquainted with the case to reply shortly to my right hon. Friend. There have been one or two explosions, which, unhappily, took place in munition works, in different parts of the country, and it was found that the sufferers from the explosion, and particularly third parties, had a difficulty in getting compensation owing to the difference of opinion as to where responsibility lay. In some instances the firms who were carrying on the works where the explosion occurred held that the responsibility was not theirs, but that it rested on the Government. The view of the Government was that the responsibility ought to have rested with the firm. As the result, owing to this difference of opinion between the firms and the Government, people who had suffered, and who ought to have had immediate compensation, were kept out of that compensation for what, to them, was a considerable period of time. I am sure everyone in the House will agree that there ought to be no haggling as to where the responsibility for paying compensation in these cases properly lies. The sufferers were not responsible, and they were entitled to compensation for loss or injury arising out of the operations carried on either directly by the Government or for the purposes of the Government. But it did not appear, and I think the House will agree, that the whole of the responsibility ought to be taken over by the Government in those cases where the contractors had a right to cover a risk of this kind, and this Bill is brought in to enable the Government to assume the whole liability, and thus remove any question as to whether it rests with the firm or with the Government, and in that case the Government ought to have power to take from the firm the required payment from the firm for a premium to cover part of the liability. Practically that is the whole Bill, and I hope the House will pardon me if I leave it at that.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.—[Mr. James Hope.]