HL Deb 09 May 1905 vol 145 cc1269-97

House in Committee (according to Order).

[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.

Clause 3—

LORD NEWTON

moved an Amendment providing that proceedings for the recovery of compensation should not, without the leave of a County Court Judge, be commenced until after the expiration of twenty-eight days from the date when the notice of accident had been given. The object of his Amendment was to give the employer time to consider the claim before proceedings were commenced against him. It was plain that no injustice could happen to the workman, because, in a case where there were special reasons for proceedings being commenced earlier, the County Court Judge was enabled to authorise them. The sub-section would, if his Amendment was adopted, read as follows— Proceedings for the recovery of compensation under this Act shall not, without the leave of a County Court, be commenced until after the expiration of twenty-eight days from the date when the notice of accident has been given, and shall not be maintainable unless— and so on.

Amendment moved— In Clause 3, page 2, line 35, after the word 'be' to insert the words "commenced until after the expiration of twenty-eight days from the date when the notice of accident has been given and shall not be.'"—(Lord Newton.)

LORD BELPER

My Lords, His Majesty's Government are entirely in sympathy with the view that proceedings should not be taken within less than a: reasonable time, in order to give the employer an opportunity, if possible, of coming to an arrangement; but the Amendment is not in the proper place. If it is inserted here, as proposed by the noble Lord, it would have this effect. The claim is part of the proceedings, and therefore it would prevent the claim for compensation being made for twenty-eight days after the accident. That, I know, is not the intention of my noble friend. I would suggest to him that he should move to amend Subsection (c) by inserting, after the word "commenced," the words "not less than twenty-eight days or more than" and leaving out the word "within." That would have the effect which the noble Lord desires without being open to the objection I have stated, namely, that of preventing a claim being made for twenty-eight days. If the noble Lord adopted my suggestion, sub-section (c) would then read— (c) Proceedings to enforce the claim have been commenced not less than twenty-eight days or more than three months after the claim for compensation has been made.

LORD DAVEY

said he had no opinion to offer with regard to the Amendment. He rose merely to express his surprise at one sentence which had fallen from the noble Lord in charge of the Bill. He referred to the sentence in which the noble Lord stated that the claim was part of the proceedings. In the old Act there was great confusion between the claim and the proceedings, and a good deal of litigation had taken place upon it. He had thought it was one of the merits of this Bill that it separated the claim from the proceedings, and settled that question upon which so much litigation had taken place. If the noble Lord would look at the Bill he would see that that was so, because proceedings were not to be taken unless a claim was first made. The claim preceded the proceedings, and was not part of the proceedings.

LORD BELPER

It has been held that the claim is part of the proceedings. At all events, the object of the noble Lord is quite as well effected by inserting the words in sub-section (c), and they come in more properly there.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (The Earl of HALSBURY)

I understand that Lord Newton does not persist in his Amendment on this sub-section, and I think it had better be discussed on its merits when it is moved to sub-section (c).

Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

, who had an Amendment on the Paper to Clause 3, said the Amendment standing in the name of his noble and learned friend behind him, Lord Davey, had the same object in view, and, as he preferred the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord to that standing in his own name, lie would not proceed with his Amendment but would support that moved by Lord Davey.

LORD DAVEY

moved an Amendment with the object of extending the time during which notice of an accident must be given from six to fourteen days. He thought that, considering a notice in writing was a condition precedent to the right of commencing proceedings, six days was too short a period. In the first place, the serious nature of many accidents was not found out until after six days had elapsed. In the matter of internal injuries that was especially the case. He knew of a recent case in which the person injured went about his work in the usual way, but found out a week afterwards that he had suffered more injury than he had anticipated; he was, indeed, incapacitated. The injured man might be in an unconscious state for a long time, or it might happen that he was unmarried and lived in lodgings, and he might not in that case be in a position to get the notice given within the time. It was quite true that a County Court Judge had power to enlarge this time, but he did not think that was quite a sufficient answer. It really did not matter very much, so far as the employer was concerned, whether the period was six or ten days because the claim for compensation was made afterwards, but he thought it would be better to put fourteen days in the Bill.

Amendment moved— In Clause 3, page 2, line 38, to leave out the word 'six' and insert the word 'fourteen.'"—(Lord Davey.)

LORD BELPER

The proposed limit of six days, with which this Amendment deals, was made in consequence of very grave complaints by employers of the law as it stood. The Act provides that notice of the accident must be lodged "as soon as practicable," but the decisions given with regard to that have led to great confusion, and complaints were made before the Committee by employers as to the operation of those words. After full consideration the Committee decided that it would be better to substitute some definite period, and the point, of course, which has to be considered is what that period should be. The statement made in evidence by the employers was that in a great many cases, owing to the delay in giving notice, they had been put in a false position. In mines underground the conditions in which the work is carried on vary so very much from day to day that it is most important, in order to afford employers an opportunity of inquiring into an accident, that the notice should be given at the earliest possible date. There is another strong reason. It was shown that in a great many trivial accidents, such as wounds and cuts, if proper precautions had been taken immediately, such as an employer would insist on if notice of the accident was given, the injury would very quickly heal, while if any length of time elapsed before notice was given the accident might, through neglect, become more serious. On that ground also it was thought extremely desirable that the employer should have notice of trivial accidents as soon as possible after they take place. The Committee and the Government have been pressed very much to make the period a shorter one even than six days. The majority of the evidence given before the Committee was in favour of limiting the time to three days; and six days was finally decided upon by the Committee as a reasonable time and somewhat as a compromise between two contending views. Under those circum stances the Government feel that it would be safer to adhere to the six days, it being quite clear that application can be made to the Court, in any case where the injured person has failed to give the notice owing to any particular circumstance, to allow the claim to proceed. I regret I cannot accept the Amendment.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

could not agree with the views expressed by Lord Belper. It seemed to him that six days was far too short a period. His noble and learned friend Lord Davey had given numerous instances in which such a notice would be too short. It was easy to find others. Take, for instance, a case of death. The death of the head of a family entirely disorganised the family, and it was quite possible that the widow, being utterly ignorant of the law, might not realise the situation and fail to give the notice within the required period. Personally, he thought the phrase in the original Act better in this respect than the Amendment proposed in this Bill; but, accepting the idea that there should be a time limit, he could not but think that the time proposed in the Bill was unnecessarily short. In London there were no postal facilities on Sunday, and that might in itself limit the opportunity of giving notice in the Metropolis to five days. The noble Lord had quoted the desire of the employers, but the Government ought also to consider the desire and the opinion of those who were employed.

LORD BELPER

I quoted the employers as wishing to have the period much shorter than six days.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said that such a proposal as that would make the Bill ridiculous. If his noble and learned friend decided to divide the House he would support him.

EARL SPENCER

The noble Lord in charge of the Bill said that when an accident took place it was important that the employer should know of it as soon as possible. We all agree as to that; but I think the arguments put forward by my noble and learned friend behind me and by the noble Marquess who has just sat down are overwhelming as to the necessity of greater time being allowed than that provided in the clause. If it is so necessary for the employer to have the notice speedily, surely that ought to be met by some other means. We are dealing now with what is just and right for the men who seek compensation, and I do not think the argument of the noble Lord meets that in any way.

LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD

trusted His Majesty's Government would reconsider this matter. It was the wish of all that justice should be meted out under this Bill to both employers and employed. They were dealing with a sick, and probably an ignorant man, and if the notice which he sent in was wrongly framed, he would not have time under the proposed limit to send in an amended notice, and his claim could not be supported thereafter in Court. Fourteen days was surely reasonable, and it would be much more satisfactory to the work man that he should have full time in which to frame his notice.

LORD BELPER

My noble and learned friend Lord James seems to be under a misapprehension as to what the Amendment deals with. It does not deal with the claim at all. A very much longer period is given in which to make the claim. This is merely the notice of the accident. In the great majority of cases notice of the accident will be given immediately after the accident. I must point out that although the workman ha s to be considered, it is of the utmost importance to the employer that he should have notice in such time as will enable him to make inquiries and be satisfied that the accident has occurred and learn the circumstances of it. The noble Marquess opposite thinks it ridiculous to limit the notice to six days.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

What I said was that it would be very ridiculous to limit it to less than six days.

LORD BELPER

The Committee were strongly impressed with the view that the notice should be given as soon after the accident as possible, and the fixing of six days was a concession to the members on the Committee who objected to a shorter limit. I am not authorised to accept the Amendment as proposed.

LORD HENEAGE

held that it was in the case of small accidents that time was more wanted. A workman who was slightly injured knew he could get no compensation for the first fourteen days after the accident, and therefore took no notice of it; but he might subsequently find that the accident was much more serious than he at first supposed, but the time would have expired in which to give notice. He thought an extension of the period to ten days would be a fair compromise.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The noble Lord has not appreciated what has been pointed out by my noble friend who is in charge of the Bill. The noble Lord is dealing with the claim for compensation. This is the notice of the accident, and has nothing whatever to do with the claim for compensation.

LORD HENEAGE

But you cannot make a claim for compensation unless notice has been given.

LORD BELPER

I assure the noble Lord that is not the case. Notice must be given in all cases where there is an accident. There may be a great many accidents in which there will be no claim for compensation at all. The period for making the claim is a long one, but this requirement with regard to notice is to enable the employer to know of the accident as soon after it has occurred as possible.

LORD DAVEY

said the noble Lord was quite correct in stating that this was not the claim for compensation, but it was a condition precedent to the claim, and he could not help thinking, having regard to the ignorance of the rather complicated procedure created by these Acts which existed among the working classes, that some longer time than six days was required. He was afraid, if the noble Lord did not see his way to make any concession, he would have to trouble the House to divide on the Amendment

THE EARL OF JERSEY

said the words in the sub-section were entirely governed by the words in the earlier part of the clause, viz.— Shall not, without the leave of a County Court, be maintainable unless," etc. If any circumstance arose which would justify a case being taken, although notice had not been given within six days, the person who suffered could apply to the County Court Judge and get permission. He thought that in those circumstances the provision with regard to the period in which notice should be given was a reasonable one.

LORD ALVERSTONE

said the words in the Act, "as soon as practicable after the happening thereof," had been found to work badly. It had been found to be important in the interests of justice that the employer should have early notice of an accident. He thought that what his noble friend Lord Jersey had pointed out really met the difficulty. His experience convinced him that the period for notice of the accident ought to be a short one. It did not in any way limit the right of a man to bring a claim for compensation, but it was of vital importance that employers should not have a suggestion of an accident put upon them without an opportunity of inquiring into it.

LORD NEWTON

moved to leave out "three months," and to substitute "six weeks" in sub-section (b), which ran as follows— (b) a claim for compensation with respect to the accident has been made in writing within three months after the happening thereof, or in case of death within six months from the time of death; and

The object of this Amendment was to reduce the period during which a claim for compensation was to be made. In short, it was to do away, if possible, with the uncertainty attached to these proceedings. This, of course, did not

LORD JAMES OF HEERFORD

May I ask the Lord Chief Justice what he means by saying that the absence of notice does not limit the right of a man to bring his claim? If he does not give notice he cannot bring his claim.

On Question, "That the word 'six' stand part of the clause," their Lord ships divided:—Contents, 56; Not-Contents, 18.

CONTENTS.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) Colville of Culross, V. Glanusk, L.
Marlborough, D. Cross, V. Hylton, L.
Lansdowne, M. Falkland, V. Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)
Goschen, V. Lawrence, L.
Pembroke and Montgomery, E. (Lord Steward.) Hutchinson, V. (E. Donouqhmore.) Ludlow, L.
Moncrieff, L.
Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain.) Knutsford, V. Mostyn, L.
Sidmouth, V. Napier, L.
Carnwath, E. Newton, L.
Cawdor, E. Bangor, L. Bp. Poltimore, L.
Denbigh, E. Ely, L. Bp. Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranfurly.)
Ducie, E. Oxford, L. Bp. Ravensworth, L.
Haddington, E. Robertson, L.
Hardwicke, E. Alverstone, L. Rosmead, L.
Jersey, E. Belhaven and Stenton, L. Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway).
Lauderdale, E. Belper, L.
Onslow, E. Biddulph, L. Tennyson, L.
Rosse, E. Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.) Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] Clifford of Chudleigh, L. Windsor, L.
Yarborough, E. Congleton, L. Zouche of Haryngworth, L.
Digby, L.
Churchill, V. [Teller.] Dunboyne, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Ripon, M. Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.) Monkswell, L.
O'Hagan, L.
Burghclere, L. Sandhurst, L.
Camperdown, E. Davey, L. Shuttleworth, L.
Carrington, E. Denman, L. [Teller.] Stanmore, L.
Chesterfield, E. [Teller.] Heneage, L. Tweedmouth, L.
Spencer, E. James, L. Wenlock, L.

refer to the County Court proceedings, but to the intimation to the employer that the workman proposed to claim compensation. He thought the arguments brought forward by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill in support of the retention of the period of six days applied in this case. It was clear, in the case of coal mines, etc., that, for purposes of evidence and for other reasons there should not be any unnecessary delay, and it seemed only fair that the employer should know as soon as possible whether he would have to meet a claim for compensation or not.

Amendment moved— In Clause 3, page 2, line 40, to leave out the words 'three months' and insert the words 'six weeks'"—(Lord Newton.)

LORD BELPER

I am not able to admit that the arguments which I made use of in support of the six days notice apply also with regard to the time for the claim. The Committee con sidered what would be the most reasonable time to allow for claims, and they decided on three months, and six months in the case of death. I do not think this provision is unreasonable. It stand in a totally different position from that of notice of accident. The employer would have full notice of the accident beforehand, and ample time for inquiry. There are obvious reasons why the time for the claim should not be fixed at too early a period, and I am not prepared to accept the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4

LORD DAVEY

moved to omit from Clause 4 (sub-contracting), Sub-section 3, excepting from the operation of the clause cases where the accident occurred elsewhere than on the premises. The principal object he had in view was to elicit some explanation from the Government as to the meaning of the clause. Giving the best attention to it he could, he had not been able to grasp the meaning or effect of it. This was a good illustration of the inconvenience of discussing a question of this kind piecemeal. Section 4 of the principal Act, of which Clause 4 of this Bill was an Amendment, dealt with the question of the liability of undertakers to workmen employed by sub-contractors. It was a very confused and badly-framed clause, and a new clause to the same effect had been substituted for it. The provision in the principal Act was this— This Act shall not apply to any contract with any person for the execution by or under such contractor of any work which is merely ancillary or incidental to and is no part or process in the trade or business carried on by such undertakers respectively. The meaning of this provision was that if a person employed a sub-contractor to build a warehouse for instance, or to do some work which was not his own work but was required for the purpose of his business, in that case these liabilities should not apply. The Government now proposed to add these words to the sub-section he had read— Nor in any case where the accident occurred elsewhere than on or in or about such premises, work, or building as are mentioned in Section 7 of this Act. In other words, he supposed it was only to apply where the accident happened on the premises where the work was done. But if they looked at Section 7 they would find that it consisted of two sub-sections. He wanted to know whether the sub-section which he proposed to strike out comprised both of those sub-sections; that was to say, whether it meant about any premises, work, or building unless the nature of the employment required that the workman should be engaged elsewhere, or did it confine the operation of Clause 4 entirely to the actual premises, work, or building where the trade was carried on. He was unable to express an opinion upon it. If it meant to refer to both sub-sections of Section 7, then it was unnecessary; and if it did not, he would be glad if the Government would kindly tell him what their reason was for confining the workmen to the premises on which the business was carried on for the purposes of this section, and this section only. Why was, say, an engineer sent to repair an engine at some railway-station or elsewhere, where it might happen to be, deprived of the benefit of Section 4? He could not see how it affected the question; and if it was intended to confine the operation of Section 4 to the particular premises where the trade was carried on, he would be glad to know the reason for it.

Amendment moved— In Clause 4, page 3, line 39, to leave out Sub-section (3)."—(Lord Davey.)

LORD BELPER

I can assure the noble and learned Lord that I feel much more than he does the difficulty of some of the points with which we have to deal in a complicated Bill of this kind. The sub-section which the noble and learned Lord proposes to leave out expressly protects the undertaker from liability in the case where the sub-contractor's workmen are employed away from the premises. The object of that is that in large works, where a number of sub contractors necessarily have to be employed, and where a great quantity of the work has to be prepared in the work shops of the sub-contractors, the under taker shall not be held responsible for any accident arising in those shops, over which he cannot possibly have control. As far as I understand, the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord would cut out that part of the clause, and would, therefore, make the under taker responsible for work over which he could not have any control. The Committee thought it would not be fair, if the Act should be extended to works away from the premises, that the under taker should be made liable for compensation to the sub-contractor's work men.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

Will the noble Lord be good enough to tell us who will be liable for compensation in such a case?

LORD BELPER

The sub-contractor.

LORD DAVEY

said he now under stood the view of the Government. He wished to say one word as to the policy of the clause as explained by the noble Lord. He was at present unable to see why his not being on the premises should make any difference to the right of the workman employed by the sub contractor who had contracted to do part of the work undertaken by the principal contractor. He was employed at the place where he was told to do the work. Take, for instance, the case of the sub-contractor to a builder. The builder had undertaken to erect a warehouse, and he let out the painting of it. The sub-contractor who did that work did it on the premises, and if the workman met with an accident during his employment he had a remedy both against the principal contractor and the sub-conductor; but in the case of the plumbing work, which the builder might also have given out to a sub-contractor, part of that work would be done on, and part off, the premises. The pipes would be made off the premises, and the fixing of them, of course, would be done on the premises, but the workman of the plumber—the sub-contractor—if he was employed off the premises in making the pipes, would not have the benefit of this clause, but his fellow-workman who was employed for the time being in fixing the pipes at the premises would have that benefit. What relation did it bear to the workman whether he was employed on one sort of work or another? Yet it made all the difference to him whether he had the liability of the principal contractor to rely upon, as well as that of the sub-contractor by whom he was immediately employed. It seemed to him that in this clause they were placing two workmen who were in precisely the same condition relative to their work, in a very different position as regards their right to compensation. He could not help thinking that the distinction made by this clause was not a sound one. The noble Lord said that the undertaker, if the work was done on the premises, could superintend it, but when an under taker gave work out to a sub-contractor he did not superintend it. That duty was done by the sub-contractor. If the sub-section in question remained in the Bill it would create an inequality between workmen of the same class, and would apply the clause in a way in which the other clauses were not made to apply. He would like the noble Lord to consider whether the clause did not require redrafting.

LORD BELPER

If the noble and learned Lord will put the point before me, the question shall be considered in the Standing Committee.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The question of form only?

The LORD BELPER

Certainly.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

The question of form can be considered in the Standing Committee, but the question of substance your Lordships will, of course decide; and the question of substance is a simple one. The person who employs the workman is the person who ought to compensate him if he is injured in that employment.

Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.

LORD DAVEY

moved an Amendment to repeal the words "is merely ancillary or incidental to and" in Section 4 of the principal Act. It was, he said, provided in Section 4 that the Act should not apply to any contract with any person for the execution by or under such contract of any work which was merely ancillary or incidental to and was no part or process in the trade or business carried on by the undertaker. Their Lordships would observe the very vague character of the words "merely ancillary or incidental to," and they had given rise already to some litigation. They appeared to him, looking at the clause in the original Act, to be absolutely unnecessary. The best explanation of them was in the subsequent words, which were tolerably clear, "and is no part or process in the trade or business carried on." The words he proposed to delete added nothing to the sense of the section, but by their vagueness invited litigation. It was really a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— To insert the following new sub-section: 'In the principal Act, Section 4, the words "is merely ancillary or incidental to and" are hereby repealed.'"—(Lord Davey.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am not at all certain that if we were making this law anew I should not agree with the noble and learned Lord, but if his Amendment is adopted all the cost and expense incurred and learned arguments used on these words will be thrown away. Inasmuch as we have arrived at a judicial determination of what the words mean I should be sorry to see them dropped now. We should have a new line of interpretation if they were struck out.

LORD DAVEY

was afraid they could not;; take much comfort to themselves from the decisions that had been given, which were to the effect that the words must be construed according to the circumstances of each case.

Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.

Clauses 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.

LORD NEWTON

moved to amend the new section dealing with the detention of ships, which it was proposed in the Bill to add to the principal Act, by inserting the word "foreign" before "ship." To reassure the Committee he might explain that this was not a tariff reform Amendment. It might be assumed that the intention of the Bill was that the power to detain a ship should be confined to foreign ships only. This view appeared to be borne out by paragraph 268 in the Report of the Departmental Committee, and the various references to the Merchant Shipping Act only dealt with the case of foreign ships; but under the clause it appeared to him that the provision might apply to British ships as well as foreign, and in order to make it clear he suggested the insertion of the word "foreign."

Amendment moved— In Clause 6A, page 4, line 23, after the word 'any' to insert the word 'foreign.'"—(Lord Newton.)

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

I would point out that Clause 6A, which the noble Lord now proposes to amend, is not a separate clause, but is part of Clause 6, which has already been passed.

THE CHAIRMAN OP COMMITTEES

That is so. Perhaps the noble Lord will bring his Amendment up in Standing Committee.

LORD NEWTON

Why cannot it be taken now?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Because the noble Lord proposes to amend a portion of Clause 6, which has already been passed.

Clause 7.

LORD DAVEY

moved to omit the words "by the undertakers" from the second line of the new section which it was proposed to substitute for Section 7 of the principal Act. He said the object of this sub-section was to define the employments to which the Act was to apply, and not in any way to define the persons by whom the compensation was to be paid. The words "by the undertakers" were absolutely unnecessary for that purpose, and, more than that, were misleading, and, therefore, mischievous. He thought they must have got in by mistake. The words were misleading because "undertaker" had a special meaning. The term did not mean every employer. A person might be an undertaker as regards work who did not employ a workman at all. Therefore, if the limitation was retained, they would strike out every case in which the workman was employed not by the undertaker but by a sub-contractor. The definition clause seemed to him to have every fault which it was possible for a definition clause to have. The definitions overlapped each other, and were framed on a perfectly different system in each case. Take the case of a railway. In the case of a railway, the owner or lessee of, or person working the railway was the undertaker. Therefore, if a new siding was being made or a new station being built, the railway company would, he presumed, be the undertakers. But, in the case of engineering work, "undertaker" meant the person undertaking the making, laying, altering, repairing, demolishing, or removing. Therefore, in the case of a railway which was being made there were, as it appeared to him, two undertakers under this clause—the railway company and the contractor who was making the railway; and in that case the railway company would be liable to any extent for injury to the navvies or the contractor's workmen. On the other hand, if a canal company were constructing a tow-house or doing any work in connection with the canal, that company was not made the undertaker and would not be liable. What possible reason was there for distinguishing between a railway company and a canal company? Again, in the case of a building, the person undertaking the construction was the undertaker and the person for whom the house was being built was not the undertaker. Why should the person for whom the house was being built be less an undertaker than a railway company for whom a railway or station was being made? It was very difficult to see the principle on which this clause was framed. He did not say it was not an improvement on the old Act; he thought it was, but the clause was very far from perfection. He was not making these suggestions in any captious or carping spirit, but with a sincere desire to make the Bill a really good and workable measure. He hoped the Government would accept his Amendment.

Amendment moved— In Clause 7, page 4, line 40, to leave out the words 'by the undertakers.'"—(Lord Davey.)

LORD BELPER

I fully recognise that the noble and learned Lord's object is to assist in making this a workable and satisfactory Bill, but if we omitted the words "by the undertakers," we should make employment by anybody else employment under the Act, for which the servant would get compensation if injured. It is necessary to provide that the employment in respect of which the compensation is paid should be employment by the undertaker. If the words "by the undertakers" were omitted, as proposed by the noble and learned Lord, the effect would be enormously to enlarge the extent of the Bill, and to enlarge it far beyond what was intended.

LORD DAVEY

hoped the Government would consider this point and if they thought it necessary to say employment by someone, he hoped they would not retain the word "undertakers." The undertaker might not be the employer at all. Therefore, if they confined it to employment by the undertaker, they would exclude a large class of workmen.

LORD ALVERSTONE

thought Lord Davey had for once overlooked the drift of his own observations. The words "employment by the undertakers" were in the existing Act and were absolutely necessary. There must be some limit; otherwise, anyone who happened to be the mere master of the servant might be liable under the Bill. The only effect of the Amendment in the Bill was to alter the class of works as to which the undertakers should be liable.

LORD DAVEY

repeated that it was desirable to substitute another word. He regretted very much that the word "undertakers" had ever been introduced, and he hoped the Government would consider the substitution of some such term as "principal contractor."

Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

moved an Amendment to include shoeing forges in the enumeration of employments to which the Act applies. This Amendment, he said, did not add anything to the Bill or bring in any new principle. It merely defined and made clear what he believed to be the intention of the Bill itself. If he was wrong in that opinion, then his Amendment became doubly necessary because of the risk that farriers might be cut out altogether from the benefits of this Bill. That certainly was not the intention of the Departmental Committee, because on page 120, Sub-section 312, they most clearly recommended that farriers should be included within the benefits of the Bill. There, smithys had been included amongst the places to which the Bill referred, which no doubt was meant to cover farriers. So far as country districts were concerned, the word "smithy" would cover farriers, because in country villages the blacksmith did general iron-forging work and repairing work, and made shoes and shod horses; but that was not the case in London and in the great cities. They had come to be completely separate trades. There was, on the one hand, the blacksmith who worked in the smithy, who was a forger of iron, and there was, on the other, the farrier who worked in the shoeing forge or the farrier's shop, who was not a blacksmith in the sense of iron-forging, but a maker of horse-shoes, and an expert in fastening them on. There were in London something like 3,000 farriers who were not blacksmiths at all. It seemed to him that these men should be most carefully included in the Act. If it was intended that the word "smithy" should cover them, there would be no objection to making that clear by adding the words "shoeing forge," which distinctly covered the sort of case he was speaking of. This was a matter felt very keenly by the particular trade on whose behalf he was speaking, and he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved— In Clause 7, page 4, line 43, after the words 'engineering work' to insert the words 'shoeing forge.'"—(Lord Tweedmouth.)

LORD BELPER

I can assure my noble friend that it is the intention of the Government to include shoeing forges-in this clause. I should have thought that "smithy" would include "shoeing forge," but if the noble Lord is satisfied that that is not the case, probably it would be better to make it perfectly clear by leaving in "smithy" and inserting after it, in parentheses, the words "including shoeing forge."

LORD TWEEDMOUTH

I will move my Amendment in that form.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF WEMYSS

had given notice to move to amend Sub-section (b) (i) by inserting, after the word "canal" the words "in the United Kingdom." He said that the sub-section to which his Amendment referred provided that anybody in the employment of the undertaker should be entitled to compensation if injured in the process of loading, unloading, or coaling, or in painting or repairing any ship in any harbour or canal. There wa3 a strong feeling on the part of shipowners that it ought to be clearly understood that these words did not apply to harbours or canals outside the United Kingdom. The noble Lord in charge of the Bill had told him, in course of conversation, that the words-in his Amendment were unnecessary, as no part of the Bill applied outside the United Kingdom, and that any words such as he proposed to insert would be not only superfluous in themselves, but might create doubt as to whether other parts of the Bill applied outside the United Kingdom or not. In those circumstances he would not move his Amendment.

LORD BELPER

The facts are as stated by the noble Earl. The Bill refers entirely to the United Kingdom. The insertion of the words in the Amendment would not only be superfluous, but might lead to the idea that other parts of the Bill, in which the words were not inserted, were intended to apply outside the United Kingdom.

LORD DAVEY

moved to amend Subsection (b) (iii.), which made the Act apply to employment by the undertaker in the care or management of horses or locomotives. This was, he said, an entirely new departure, because it would Tender any gentleman who employed a coachman or groom liable for any accident that might happen to them. If that was what the Government intended he had no objection to it, but he wished to point out that it was an entirely new departure. Hitherto this compensation had not been applied to domestic servants at all, with the doubtful exception of gardeners, but if it was to apply to coachmen and grooms he did not see why it should not apply to other domestic employment as well. If the noble Lord stated that it was intended to apply to private coachmen or grooms he would not press his Amendment.

Amendment moved— In Clause 7, page 5, line 18, after the word 'locomotives' to insert the words 'for the purpose of any trade or business, or in agriculture.'"—(Lord Davey.)

LORD BELPER

The idea is that it should apply to coachmen, grooms, and those in charge of horses, and also to chauffeurs of motor-cars. With regard to what the noble and learned Lord said as to this being a new departure, I am informed that gardeners do come under the operation of the Act of 1900, and, there fore, the departure was made in that year. There seems to me no reason why, if gardeners are to get compensation, persons employed in much more dangerous occupations, such as chauffeurs and those having to do with horses, should not be included.

LORD DAVEY

said his desire had been achieved. He wanted to know what was the meaning of the clause. He still thought it was introducing a new and wide principle by a side wind, and he doubted very much whether gardeners were included in the Act of 1900. He would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.

LORD DAVEY

moved to amend Section (2), which provides that "In this Act 'railway' and 'tramway' include every station, and siding of or belonging to the railway or tramway." He moved to leave out the second "and," and to insert, after "siding," the words "or other building or work." The Amendment was merely a drafting one.

Amendment moved— In Clause 7, page 5, line 22, to leave out the second word 'and'; and in line 23, after the word 'siding' to insert the words 'or other building or work.'"—(Lord Davey.)

LORD BELPER

I do not think this is merely a drafting Amendment. The definition of "railway" is that it includes every station, siding, wharf, and dock, and, therefore, it is not thought necessary to put them in the definition of "railway" in this Bill. If Lord Davey's words were adopted, it would bring every railway hotel, for instance, under the operation of the Act, and sometimes railway hotels are not even in direct connection with the railway. More than that, it would bring the clerks in an office belonging to a railway in the middle of a town under the Act. The Government do not think it necessary to extend it in this way. I think the noble and learned Lord will find that the definition of "railway' really covers all that it is necessary to cover, and that every part of a railway, including offices, stations, goods warehouses, and goods sheds, will be included in the Bill as it stands at present.

LORD DAVEY

said he doubted whether workshops or engine sheds were included, but if the noble Lord was satisfied that they were he would not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.

LORD NEWTON

moved to amend the definition of "undertakers" in the case of a railway by leaving out the words "owner or lessee" and inserting the words "having the actual use or occupation" of the railway. As he read the Bill, if he were the owner of a railway, and the lessee should prove to be an impecunious person, he could be sued for compensation in the case of an accident, although he had no control over the railway.

Amendment moved— In Clause 7, page 6, lines 18 and 19, to leave out the words 'owner or lessee of or,' and after the word 'person' in line 19 to insert the words 'having the actual use or occupation or.'"—(Lord Newton.)

LORD BELPER

I am informed that the words in the Bill cover every possible person who ought to be liable to pay compensation. Under the Bill the employees of a railway company who are employed outside would get compensation. The Bill is not confined to the line itself as before, and we believe that with that alteration everybody will be covered, and that it is not necessary to make any alteration.

LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD

asked whether, if the owner of a railway leased it, he would be liable as well as the lessee.

LORD BELPER

I understand that no difficulty has arisen on this point, but I will undertake that it shall be considered.

LORD NEWTON

On the understanding that it is considered in Standing Committee I withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

LORD NEWTON

moved to insert the following new clause: "In Paragraph (1) (a) (i) of the First Schedule after the words 'equal to his' insert 'net,' after the words 'amount of his' insert 'net,' and after the words 'average weekly' insert 'net' and in Paragraph (1) (b) of the First Schedule after the words 'average weekly' insert' net.'" This Amendment dealt with the question, of net and gross earnings of men in regard to the question of compensation. It would appear that the intention of the Bill was that only the net earnings would be considered, but he understood that considerable difficulty had arisen over this point in cases that had been tried, and it seemed to him desirable that it should be cleared up. In Paragraph 216 of the Report of the Departmental Committee it was pointed out that some such Amendment as this was necessary. It was there stated that the practice in many industries was to make deductions from gross earnings for certain purposes, and that in coal mines it was the practice for colliers to pay those working under them out of their earnings. The Committee mentioned that Mr. Ratcliffe Ellis contended that "earnings" ought to mean "net earnings," the actual reward or recompense for labour, and with this contention they agreed. It was on that finding that he based his Amendment. He was aware that this question had been met to a certain extent by one of the sub-sections in this clause, but he ventured to think that the introduction of the word "net" would simplify matters.

Amendment moved— After Clause 7 to insert the following new clause: 'In Paragraph (1) (a) (i) of the First Schedule after the words 'equal to his' to-insert the word 'net,' after the words 'amount of his' to insert the word 'net,' and after the words 'average weekly' to insert the word 'net,' and in Paragraph (1) (b) of the First Schedule after the words 'average weekly' to insert the word 'net.'"—(Lord Newton.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am very much afraid this is one of the instances in which an attempt to make a thing clearer than it is already would make it the reverse. If the word "earnings" is used, then it is simply a question of fact for the tribunal to ascertain what the earnings are—not necessarily the amount of money actually paid, but the sum actually-received by the workman after all deductions or allowances had been taken into account. If you introduce the word "net" you do not get any further definition because the same question, What are the earnings? will still arise, but I think an additional source of confusion may be imported into the consideration of the question. I therefore hope my noble friend will not insist on his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.

Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.

Clause 10.

LORD DAVEY

moved to amend the provision that "in the case of partial incapacity the weekly payment shall in no case exceed one-half of the difference between the amount of the average weekly earnings of the workman before the accident and the average weekly amount which he is earning or is able to earn in some suitable employment or business after the accident," by the deletion of the word "suitable," and the substitution of the word "other." The word "suitable" seemed to invite litigation, and he thought the words "in some other employment" would answer every purpose.

Amendment moved— In Clause 10, page 9, line 21, to leave out the word 'suitable' and to insert the word 'other.'"—(Lord Davey.)

LORD BELPER

The word "suitable" was put in for the benefit of the workman to meet a case where a skilled man was offered some totally unsuitable employment. It really is to the benefit of the workman, because if he was not offered suitable employment he would get full compensation. I think the word "suitable," which can always be interpreted in a reasonable way, does guard the workman, and that was the object of inserting it in the Bill.

Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.

Clause 10 agreed to.

Clauses 11 to 16 agreed to.

LORD DAVEY

moved to amend the Second Schedule to the principal Act, Sub-section (2), by inserting, after the first word "judge," the words "or by a single arbitrator appointed by him," and repealing the words from "rules of Court" to the end of the sub-section. The sub-section in question enabled a County Court Judge, according to procedure prescribed by rules of Court, or if in England by permission of the Lord Chancellor, to appoint a single arbitrator. The Lord Chancellor would be able to tell the House whether he had ever been called upon in this connection. He failed to see the necessity of making an additional reference in England only to the Lord Chancellor before a County Court Judge could appoint an arbitrator. He did not think the Lord Chancellor should be brought in for suck a small purpose.

Amendment moved— In the Second Schedule to the principal Act, Sub-section (2), after the first word 'Judge' to insert the words 'or by a single arbitrator appointed by him,' and to repeal the words from 'rules of Court' to the end of the-subsection."—(Lord Davey.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

This is one of the sections of the Act that have operated without the least friction or difficulty. I may tell my noble and learned friend that I am continually applied to, and that the provision is a very wholesome and proper one. If the County Court Judge has a sufficient amount of work to do, it is proper that he should transfer the duties of arbitration to somebody else, but it is quite necessary that there should be some check upon that power, and therefore it is only on application to the Lord Chancellor that he gets the power to do that, and I have never had any difficulty at all with County Court Judges on the matter. Applications are constantly made to me, and I accede to them where the circumstances justify it.

Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.

LORD DAVEY

moved, on Paragraph (7) of the Second Schedule of the Act— In case of the death or refusal or inability to act of an arbitrator, a Judge of the High Court at Chambers may, on the application of any party, appoint a new arbitrator, to substitute 'the County Court Judge' for 'a Judge of the High court at chambers.' Their Lordships would observe that it was the County Court Judge who appointed the arbitrator in the first instance, but in the case of the death of the arbitrator or his inability to.act a Judge of the High Court was called upon to appoint a new arbitrator. This introduced fresh expense, as the application had to be made in London. If the County Court Judge could appoint the arbitrator in the first instance he failed to see why on the death of that arbitrator, or his inability to act, the County Court Judge should not be empowered to appoint a successor.

Amendment moved— In Sub-section (7) to leave out the words 'a Judge of the High Court at Chambers' and insert the words 'the County Court Judge.'"—(Lord Davey.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

There is no objection to this Amendment, and we accept it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 17 to 21 agreed to.

Clause 22.

LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD

called attention to Sub-section 4 of this clause, which provides that;— The principal Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1900, shall as from the commencement of this Act take effect subject to the additions, omissions, and substitutions required by this Act, and any copy of the principal Act or the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1900, printed after the passing of this Act by authority of His Majesty may be printed with the additions, omissions, and substitutions required by this Act. This would, he said, give the King's printer the right to take the Bill when it became an Act, and himself ingraft it into the old Act. It was a very serious matter to give the power to any unknown individual to substitute one set of words in an Act of Parliament for another. The burden of doing that ought to be cast upon the Clerk of the Parliaments or some other authorised person. He hoped that at a subsequent stage a solution of this serious difficulty would be found.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My noble and learned friend has made this objection on a former occasion with regard to another Bill, but I take a totally different view of the meaning of the clause. In my view it simply authorises the printer to print the amended Act in the same way as he was originally authorised to print the Act of which this is an Amendment. I take it that the word which has misled my noble and learned friend is the word "required." If by the word required was meant that the printer had any jurisdiction to determine what alteration of language would be appropriate to the amended Act, I should agree with every word of my noble and learned friend's objection, but I do not take that view. "Required" means required by the enactment of the statute, and therefore this simply authorises the King's printer to print the Bill as your Lordships' House and the other House have agreed to it and does not permit him to alter or to omit a single word. The idea is that the printer requires some authorisation to reprint the amended Act. My own view is that the section is not required at all. I do not believe it adds anything. The printer is entitled to print the amended Act; that would be involved in the general authority that he has to print what the Legislature has enacted; and if there is the slightest idea that the printer can exercise any discretion, or that he has any right to print anything but what he gets from the Clerk of the Parliaments as having been enacted, I should agree with every word my noble and learned friend has said. But, as I have said, I do not take that view. I think the language used is a little imprudent, and that the word "enacted" might be substituted for the word "required," which would, I think, get over the difficulty.

LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD

said it was not merely a question of the word "required." The point was that by this section the printer would be authorised to take this Bill when it became an Act and incorporate it with the principal Act. Parliament should not delegate that duty to the King's printer.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

To my mind it does not in the least degree matter if the printer had printed improperly some word in the print, because the moment it was ascertained that he had done that it would be something outside his duties. I do not, however, think it is at all likely to take place. I think my noble and learned friend is confusing two things. When the Act is issued from the Clerk of the Parliaments as having been enacted by Parliament, all that the printer has to do is to print it; and it seems to me that my noble and learned friend is under an entire misapprehension as to what could happen in the circumstances he has suggested.

Clause 22 agreed to.

Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 70.)