HL Deb 31 May 1934 vol 92 cc651-74

Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee read.

LORD ROCKLEY

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Rockley.)

LORD GAINFORD

My Lords, I do not wish it to be thought that I object to the principle of the Bill and the last thing I would suggest is that the noble Lord in charge of it is responsible for the drafting of the measure. But I think I ought to draw the attention of the noble Lord to the great alterations which are suggested by the Amendments placed on the Paper by the noble Lord. The Bill as it has come up from another place consists of about 360 lines in six clauses. Of these it is now proposed to invite your Lordships to omit something like 200 of these lines and to insert about 200 new lines leaving only about 167 lines of the original Bill. If any illustration was required of the necessity for this House I do not think you could have a better example. The Bill requires revision from one end to the other and that is admitted by the promoters. Whilst the principle of the Bill ought to be accepted, I am going to move a few small verbal alterations, and I thought it right at this stage to draw the attention of the House to the great changes that will be made in the text of the Bill if the noble Lord's Amendments are carried.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Insurance of owners of coal mines against liability to their workmen.

1.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the owner of a coal mine shall not, at any time, employ any workmen for the purposes of that mine unless there is in force between the owner and an authorised insurer a contract of insurance insuring the owner against all liability under the principal Act to those workmen in respect of their employment by him for those purposes in the course of some period current at that time:

Provided that, for the purposes of this subsection, a contract of insurance shall not be taken to be other than a contract insuring the owner against all such liability as aforesaid by reason only that the indemnity afforded by the contract does not, in the case of any injury by accident or disease resulting in incapacity for work, extend to payments by way of compensation in respect of the incapacity which become payable before the expiration of a period of twenty-six weeks from the date on which the incapacity begins, other than payments which are outstanding at the time of, or become payable after the happening of any of the following events, that is to say:—

  1. (a) the owner becoming bankrupt or making a composition or arrangement with his creditors; or
  2. (b) if the owner is a company, the company commencing to be wound up, or a receiver or manager of the company's business or undertaking being duly appointed, or possession being taken, by or on behalf of the holders of debentures secured by a floating charge, of any property of the company comprised in, or subject to, the charge.

(2) If the owner of a coal mine employs any workmen in contravention of this section, he shall, for each week in the course of which he so employs workmen at any time, be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both such imprisonment and such fine; and where an offence under this section committed by a corporation is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to have been facilitated by any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the corporation, he, as well as the corporation, shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall he liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly:

Provided that where any person is charged with an offence under this section in respect of the employment of workmen at any time for the purposes of a coal mine by the owner thereof, it shall be a defence to prove that at that time—

  1. (a) there was in force an instrument (hereafter in this Act referred to as "a compensation trust") conforming with the requirements of the Schedule to this Act, for securing by means of a special trust fund the discharge of all the owner's liability under the principal Act to workmen in respect of their employment by him for the purposes of that mine in the course of some period current at that time; and
  2. (b) all the owner's obligations for the time being under the compensation trust had been discharged.

In this subsection the expression "week" means a period of seven consecutive days beginning on Sunday.

(3) The trustees under any compensation trust shall be deemed to be trustees not only for the owner of the coal mine and his legal personal representative, if ally, but also fur the workmen, and the due administration of the trust shall be enforceable accordingly, and the provisions contained in a compensation trust in accordance with the Schedule to this Act shall be valid, notwithstanding any rule against perpetuities.

(4) In this section the expression "authorised insurer" means—

  1. (a) an insurance company or an underwriter in whose case the requirements of the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, with respect to deposits by assurance companies and deposits and guarantees by underwriters are complied with; or
  2. (b) a mutual indemnity association;
so, however, that a mutual indemnity association formed after the end of the year nineteen hundred and thirty-three shall he deemed, for the purposes of this section, not to be an authorised insurer unless the association has deposited the sum of twenty thousand pounds with tile Accountant General of the Supreme Court in pursuance of the following provisions of this Act.

LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "for the purposes of" and insers "in or about." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really one of a legal character, dealing with a drafting point. The noble Lord, Lord Rockley, seeks to alter the words in the original Bill and to insert new words, as indicated by the Amendment Paper, so that the subsection would read "for the purposes of the undertaking carried on at that mine." The words in the Bill, "for the purposes of," are quite vague. They are not Parliamentary words at all, they are not applicable to coal mines, and we have to go to the Coal Mines Act, 1911, where we find in Section 80 these words: Where, in or about any mine, whether above or below ground, any accident occurs… The words I want to introduce are the words that appear in that Act, "in or about" the mine. Everybody in the coal trade knows who the men are employed in or about a mine. They would not know who the men might be, if they were referred to in a part of this clause coming after such vague words as "for the purposes of."

As an illustration of my point, it might be to the interest of a coal owner to cut wood "for the purposes of" obtaining pit props or some other purpose; but if he did that, we will say in a plantation some distance away, it would obviously be "for the purposes of" the mine, but the men employed "in or about" the mine would not be so employed. The Act of 1911 states quite clearly who are the people who are intended to be covered—all those people who are on the wage lists connected with the colliery. There is no justification for the words adopted by the noble Lord. The noble Lord later on, in the Definition Clause, adopts the words of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, and therefore this Amendment is quite consistent with the Bill in that respect.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 8, leave out ("for the purposes of") and insert ("in or about").— (Lord Gainford.)

LORD ROCKLEY

Referring in the first instance to what Lord Gainford said about the alterations in this Bill, I quite appreciate his remarks that, though I moved the Second Reading, I was not responsible for the drafting originally. But I would certainly endorse and emphasise his observation that the number of Amendments to the Bill that may be necessary in this House shows how very valuable the revising functions of your Lordships' House are. Anybody who wished to argue that a Second Chamber was necessary could not have a better illustration than in this Bill, which is wholly non-Party and yet requires so much amendment after it has left the House of Commons.

As to the specific Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, I quite appreciate that these words are used in the Coal Mines Act of 1911, but I understand that there is some doubt legally whether they are the best possible words to use, and the words which I am proposing—"for the purposes of the undertaking carried on at that mine"—are an effort to come to a compromise on this rather difficult interpretation. Whatever words are used I presume would be inserted by insurance companies and mutual indemnity associations in regard to the cover which they give to coal owners, and the words actually used in such documents now, I am told, differ widely. It seems therefore desirable that we should endeavour to use the best possible words in this Bill that we can arrive at. While I think I must for the moment press that the words which stand in my name should be here inserted, because they are also inserted in Amendments to other parts of the Bill, which would make it a little difficult at the moment to change them, I am quite willing to leave the matter open for further consideration on Report.

LORD GAINFORD

The words which the noble Lord has suggested are absolutely vague. The Coal Mines Act of 1911 defines who are the men "in or about" a mine. This is a Compensation Bill for coal mines, and therefore it is absolutely important that we should now insert the proper words, for the legal definition of the men employed "in or about" a mine. These words are known, they are understood by the Home Office. they are understood by everyone in the trade, whereas the words which the noble Lord proposes would extend to a great number of people employed in different kinds of work connected with the purposes of the colliery and yet quite outside the colliery. If the noble Lord desires at a later stage to deal further with the matter he may do so, but at the moment I wish to press my Amendment.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I would remind your Lordships that the expression "in or about" contained in the noble Lord's Amendment was carefully considered when the Bill was drafted, and at that time those words were rejected on the ground that they were of too geographical a nature and might be held to exclude men actually employed in connection with the mining part of the undertaking at some place not actually on the mine premises. On the other hand, at that time it was felt it would not be right to compel a colliery company to insure in respect of men employed, not for the purposes of the mine, but in some other industry such as iron and steel works or shipping, and the plan adopted in drafting the Bill was to require insurance in respect of men employed "for the purposes of" the mine and to define men in such a way as specifically to exclude any part of the mine premises in which the manufacturing part of the undertaking is carried on. In these circumstances the Government have been advised that it could hardly be held that the Bill applied in respect of the employment of workmen for the purposes of the manufacturing part of an undertaking, still less could it be directed to workmen employed on ships run not merely for the purposes of the mine but as shipping undertakings, although under the same company. Although the Government approve of the principle of the Amendment, they feel that the words proposed by Lord Rockley would fulfil the purpose better than the words of the noble Lord opposite.

LORD GAINFORD

After all, I have some knowledge of this subject, and I repeat that the words in the Bill are much too vague. The men employed "in or about" the mine come within the jurisdiction of His Majesty's inspectors of mines, and they include all the men who are shunters and engine-men and anyone who works at a colliery whether above ground or below ground. Therefore, it seems to me only right that at this stage we should put in words which are understood by everyone in the trade and understood by the workmen them- selves, and not introduce these slovenly words which may open the door for other people to be included.

LORD ROCKLEY

May I point out that the noble Lord himself uses the words "for the purposes of" the mine in a subsequent Amendment on this clause Therefore, I imagine there is something to be said for the use of these words. I repeat that I am quite willing, if he win let my words stand to-day, to consider the matter further on the Report stage and see if we cannot devise better words which will please him.

LORD GAINFORD

The words "for the purposes of" the mine in my later Amendment have nothing to do with the men employed. It is because the

Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD ROCKLEY moved, in subsection (1), after "for the purpose of," to insert "the undertaking carried on at." The noble Lord said: This is really an attempt to meet Lord Gainford's point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 8, after ("of") insert ("the undertaking carried on at").—(Lord Ruckley.)

words in this case are used in relation to the particular men this Bill is intended to affect that it is important a distinction should be made.

LORD ROCKLEY

I can only hope that the noble Lord will accept my words, offered ih a spirit of compromise at this stage, with the promise that they will be carefully considered later.

LORD GAINFORD

I feel that the matter is so important that I must press it to a Division.

On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 21.

CONTENTS.
Sankey, V. (L. Chancellor.) Hereford, V. Hardinge of Penshurst, L.
Knutsford, V. Hindlip, L.
Aberdeen and Temair, M. Jessel, L. [Teller.]
Addington, L. Kilmaine, L.
Bathurst, E. Amulree, L Kylsant, L.
Bradford, E. Askwith, L. Lamington, L.
Feversham, E. Atkin, L. Latymer, L.
Fortescue, E. Banbury of Southam, L. Merrivale, L.
Iddesleigh, E. Biddulph, L. Mildmay of Flete, L.
Lucan, E. Boston, L. Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)
Mar and Kellie, E. Carrington, L. Rankeillour, L.
Munster, E. Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.) Redesdale, L.
Peel, E. Rennell, L.
Plymouth, E. Conway of Allington, L. Rockley, L. [Teller.]
Cranworth, L. Strathoona and Mount Royal, L.
Astor, V. Danesfort, L.
Bertie of Thame, V. Daryngton, L. Templemore, L.
FitzAlan of Derwent, V. Ellenborough, L. Woodbridge, L.
Hailsham, V. Gage, L. (V. Gage.)
NOT-CONTENTS.
Reading, M. Mersey, V. Hutchison of Montroes, L.
Illingworth, L.
Buxton, E. Arnold, L. Polwarth, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Clwyd, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Denman, L. Rhayader, L. [Teller.]
Dudley, E. Ernle, L. Sanderson, L.
Gainford, L. [Teller.] Stanmore, L.
Esher, V. Greville, L. Strabolgi, L.
Strachie, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ROCKLEY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out all words after "force" down to the proviso and insert "either—

  1. (a) a contract of insurance subscribed by an authorised insurer, being a contract which (subject to the exception mentioned in the next following subsection) insures the owner against all liability under the principal Act in respect of the employment of workmen by him or any other person for those purposes at that time; or
    2. 659
  2. (b) an instrument (hereafter in this Act referred to as a 'compensation trust'), conforming with the requirements of the Schedule to this Act, for securing by means of a special trust fund the discharge of all the owner's liability under the principal Act in respect of the employment of workmen as mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection."

The noble Lord said: This is purely a drafting Amendment except that it puts the compensation trust on the same footing as the two permitted methods of insurance. In so far as the proof of the commission of an offence is concerned, I would note that the owner is responsible for the insurance of workmen employed by contractors, and this Amendment is to make quite clear that the whole extent of the owner's liability under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, is included in this Bill.

Amendment moved— Page line 9, leave out from ("force") to the end of line 13, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Rockley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ROCKLEY rose to move the omission of all words in the proviso in subsection (1) down to and including "outstanding" and to insert: (2) The exception allowed by paragraph (a) of the foregoing subsection is as follows, that is to say, that the indemnity afforded by the contract of insurance need not, in the case of any injury by accident or disease resulting in incapacity for work, extend to payments of compensation in respect of the incapacity which become payable before the expiration of a period of twenty-six weeks from the date on which the incapacity begins, other than payments which are due.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Perhaps I had better say at once that I have had handed to me a manuscript Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, which, if your Lordships accept it, will entail a number of other manuscript Amendments in other clauses consequential thereto. Perhaps I had better read the manuscript Amendment. It is to strike out of the proposed new subsection the word "incapacity," in line 6 and the words that follow, in order to insert the words "total or partial incapacity for the first twenty-six weeks of such incapacity."

LORD ROCKLEY

I was under the impression that this was only a drafting Amendment and that it would be dealt with accordingly. It has been carefully considered by the interests concerned and I did not know that there was any serious objection to the words proposed.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 14, leave out from the beginning of the line to ("at") in line 6 on page 2 and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Rockley.)

LORD GAINFORD moved to leave out of the proposed new subsection the first "incapacity" and all words thereafter and to insert the words "total or partial incapacity for the first twenty-six weeks of such incapacity." The noble Lord said: I quite appreciate the intention of the noble Lord in moving this Amendment, but this is a technical matter and I think he does not appreciate that the words he proposes would not apply to existing conditions under the law. At the present time if a man is injured and is away from work, say, for three weeks and then is given a light job for three weeks but is again incapacitated owing to the original injury, he is paid for the whole period of incapacity even if the twenty-six weeks is not a continuous period. Even if there are breaks in the period he can still claim to be paid compensation by the employer for twenty-six weeks. Hewould be paid even though the broken periods of incapacity extended over a year instead of being twenty-six consecutive weeks which the noble Lord's words would cover.

The words which I propose would enable a man to get his full compensation for twenty-six weeks even if there were a series of breaks during that period when he was receiving full wages or partial wages. It is the custom in the industry to pay compensation to a man and then, if on a doctor's certificate that he can work he goes back to work for a time but breaks down again owing to the original injury, he is compensated, not by an insurance company, but by the employer. It is in order to meet the case of breaks in a period of incapacity that it is necessary to insert the words which I propose and I hope that the noble Lord will accept them.

Amendment to the proposed new subsection moved— Line 6, leave out all words after ("the") to the end of the subsection and insert ("total or partial incapacity for the first twenty-six weeks of such incapacity").—(Lord Gainford.)

LORD ROCKLEY

I feel some difficulty in arguing this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Gainford, but I understand that his proposal has been carefully considered by the parties chiefly concerned and has been turned down. It would be very helpful if we could have legal opinion on the matter, because I am not quite sure of the effect of shortening the period as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Gainford. I am informed that the matter has been carefully considered by technical authorities, who think the other wording is better.

LORD GAINFORD

I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, but I know what I am talking about and his words do not meet the case of breaks in a period of incapacity. It is in order to protect the workman and to prevent him being deprived of full compensation in the event of going back to work that I ask that these words be inserted. It is in the interests of the workman and of everybody concerned. I do hope that the noble Lord will accept this Amendment because I have taken the best legal advice I can and I am assured that it is in the interests of the men that it should be made.

LORD ATKIN

I should like to suggest to my noble friend that he should bring up this Amendment again after giving notice so that we might have the opportunity of considering it. It is difficult to deal with an Amendment of this character as a manuscript Amendment which we have not had before us. The Amendment moved by Lord Rokley is a drafting Amendment to carry out what was agreed to in another place. If we are to consider another proposal I think it would be better to have the Amendment before us.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

I hope my noble friend will agree to the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord. It is extraordinarily difficult to pronounce a legal opinion upon an intricate matter of this kind without having the words before us.

LORD GAINFORD

In the circumstances I will withdraw my Amendment now, and put it down on Report.

Amendment to the proposed new subsection, by leave, withdrawn.

On. Question, original Amendment agreed to.

LORD ROCKLEY

The next three Amendments on the Paper are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.

Amendments moved— Page 2, line 27, leave out ("is proved to have") and insert ("has") Page 2, line 28, leave out from the second ("or") to ("facilitated") in line 29. Page 2, line 34, leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 5 on page 3.—(Lord Rockley.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD ROCKLEY moved to leave out subsection (3). The noble Lord said: move to leave out this subsection because it deals with a matter for which provision is made in a new clause which I shall move be inserted after Clause 4.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 8, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Rockley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD GAINFORD moved, in subsection (4), to substitute "nineteen hundred and thirty-four" for "nineteen hundred and thirty-three." The noble Lord said: As I explained on Second Reading, this Amendment is necessary to enable the Bill to operate fairly in regard to existing companies. The Bill as drafted would not give mutual indemnity associations a fair opportunity of setting their house in order before the end of the year. There are only three of them and they are large, substantial concerns which can deal with the situation between now and the end of the year. This is a retrospective measure. These three large companies are quite prepared to do what is necessary between now and the end of the year, and in order that they should be dealt with fairly is necessary that the date should be changed to 1934. The main argument for the provision that a sum of £20,000 should be deposited was that it was necessary in order to prevent the mushroom growth of little associations, but if you penalise existing concerns by asking them to deposit £20,000 before the Bill comes into operation you will be doing something which is grossly unfair. It would only lock up money and instead of helping insurance it would have the reverse effect.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 27, leave out ("three") and insert ("four").—(Lord Gainford.)

LORD ROCKLEY

On this matter I understand from the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment that there are only two or three indemnity associations which are really concerned with this Amendment, one in North Staffordshire, one in Lancashire, and one, I think, in Cumberland. Against the Amendment it should be pointed out that the £20,000 to which the noble Lord referred, when deposited, will still form a part of the association's reserves, although of course it can only be used in the event of liquidation. It should not therefore be necessary for those associations to start with a larger initial reserve merely and solely because of the fact that £20,000 of their reserve money will be deposited with the Supreme Court rather than with their own bankers. The reason for this provision is that it is naturally desired to hinder the formation of new mutual indemnity associations which might not have adequate financial resources. It must be obvious that if this Amendment were passed, possibly some associations unsound financially might be formed, and associations of that nature would be a very real danger. That is the reason why I think the noble Lord's Amendment would be a mistake.

I would like to add, again with some diffidence, in regard to those special cases, that where the whole situation is quite bona fide, I believe it would be possible for the bodies concerned to alter their articles of association and to meet the case by that means. It is not a very difficult matter to alter articles of association. They need not re-form themselves into a new association. If they are already existing they have merely to go to the High Court and go through the usual procedure to alter their articles of association to suit the position.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

I should like to amplify the words which have fallen from the noble Lord behind me. I understand that the object of the noble Lord's Amendment is to exempt from making the deposit certain mutual indemnity associations formed between the end of 1933 and the date upon which this Bill is to come into operation, January 1, 1935. One should consider the object of the important provision which is at present in the Bill. At present the mutual indemnity associations are not under the obligations of ordinary insur- ance companies laid down by the Assurance Companies Acts, with a view to securing their financial stability. Any small group of employers can form themselves into a mutual indemnity association.

The intention of the provision in this Bill, in Clause 1, subsection (4), is to discourage the formation of unsound mutual indemnity associations which might to some extent evade the intentions of the Bill. For example, as has been quoted, a few coal owners might comply with the letter of the law as regards compulsory insurance by forming themselves into a small mutual indemnity association with insufficient financial backing, and much evil might obviously arise in consequence of the formation of such an association. It is accordingly proposed to require a deposit from associations formed after December 31, 1933, that is, a date just before the publication of the Bill. I understand that the motive behind the noble Lord's Amendment is to enable certain coal owners to wind up their own mutual indemnity companies and form a new one without having to make a deposit. This procedure is, I understand, not necessary in order to meet the requirements of the Bill. It appears that they can simply amend their articles of association, that is, the old mutual indemnity association, for that purpose, without winding up the company and forming a new one. The procedure which they are understood to contemplate might have the advantage to the coal owners of saving them something in Income Tax, but it would obviously have the effect of weakening the resources of the mutual indemnity association, and this of course would be contrary to one of the chief objects of the Bill. Therefore, for these reasons strong objection can be taken to the Amendment, especially as it is two years since the Mining Association urged that full cover should be given, and in the opinion of His Majesty's Government the coal owners ought to have taken steps dealing with this matter previous to the end of 1933.

LORD GAINFORD

Of course, with the Government against me I shall not go to a Division, but I must protest against the suggestion that there are likely to be any mutual indemnity societies of this sort formed by coal owners between now and the end of the year. We have already told the Home Office as plainly as coal owners can that by the end of the year every workman will be fully covered whether a firm goes into liquidation or not, and therefore the whole of this Bill is really unnecessary. We do not object to the principle; we want every workman to be covered properly, and it is only in the interests of three mutual indemnity societies—and quite big ones—that this Amendment is moved. I suggest that it is unnecessary that they should be compelled to put up £20,000 and be penalised in the way suggested by the Home Office. Although I think it is very unfair, I shall not go to a Division.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 [Information as to insurance to be given to workmen]:

LORD ROCKLEY

I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 33, after ("of") insert ("the undertaking carried on at").—(Lord Rockley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The noble Lord, Lord Gainford, has handed in a manuscript Amendment on page 4, line 2, and also another manuscript Amendment later.

LORD GAINFORD

None of them arise.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

As none of them arise, with the noble Lord's permission I will not put them.

LORD ROCKLEY

My next Amendment is really a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 2, leave out from ("Act") to ("and") in line 6 and insert ("in respect of the employment of workmen, within a specified period current at that time, for the purposes of the undertaking carried on at the mine").—(Lord Rockley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ROCKLEY

I beg to move the next Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 22, leave out from ("Act") to ("and") in line 26, and insert ("in respect of the employment of workmen, within a specified period current at that time, for the purposes of the undertaking carried on at the mine").—(Lord Rockley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ROCKLEY

The next Amendment is purely consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 5, leave out ("by the owner").—(Lord Rockley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ROCKLEY

The next Amendment is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved—

Page 5, line 5, at end insert: ("Provided that where by reason of the death of a person who, at the time when the compensation trust came into force, was the owner of the coal mine to which the trust relates, his personal representative is the owner for the time being of that mine, any notice signed by the deceased owner For the purpose of paragraph (b) of this subsection shall have effect for that purpose as if it were also signed by the personal representative").—(Lord Rockley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 [Effect of certain contracts of insurance]:

LORD ROCKLEY

I have nothing further to say upon the first Amendment all Clause 3.

Amendment moved— Page 5, leave out lines 25 and 26 and insert ("in respect of the employment of workmen for the purposes of the undertaking carried on at that mine").—(Lord Rockley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ROCKLEY

The next two Amendments are drafting.

Amendments moved— Page 5, line 26, at end insert ("and in the following provisions of this section the expression 'claim to which this section applies' means, in relation to any such contract of insurance as aforesaid, any such claim under the contract as arises out of a liability under the principal Act in respect of the employment of a workman after the commencement of this Act for the purposes of the undertaking carried on at a coal mine.") Page 5, line 32, leave out from ("claim") to the end of line 35 and insert ("to which this section applies").—(Lord Rockley.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD ROCKLEY

The next is a drafting Amendment too.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 30, leave out from ("claim") to ("has") in line 43, and insert ("to which this section applies").—(Lord Rockley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ROCKLEY moved to leave out subsection (4) and insert: (4) For the purpose of determining, as regards any liability under the principal Act in respect of employment after the commencement of this Act for the purposes of the undertaking carried on at a coal mine, whether the workman has any, and if so what, rights by virtue of subsection (1) of Section seven of the principal Act in relation to a contract of insurance to which this section applies, but for no other purpose—

  1. (a) the insurer shall be deemed not to be, and never to have been, entitled to avoid the contract on the ground of any misrepresentation or non-disclosure of material facts on the part of the insured, or on the ground that the answer to any question required to be answered by the insured in making any proposal for the contract was false or incomplete; and
  2. (b) any admission or agreement whereby the said liability under the principal Act was established against the insured shall be treated as binding on the insurer, notwithstanding that it was made or entered into without his authority."
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 3, leave out subsection (4) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Rockley.)

THE MARQUESS OF READING

Would the noble Lord mind telling me how it is possible for an Amendment requiring at least three paragraphs to be merely a drafting Amendment?

LORD ROCKLEY

It is a redrafting of subsection (4) which it is hoped will read more intelligibly to noble Lords.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ROCKLEY

All my other Amendments to this clause are merely of a drafting nature.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

In the circumstances I will put all the remaining Amendments in the name of the noble Lord to this clause together.

Amendments moved—

Page 6, line 27, leave out from ("Where") to ("insurer") in line 30, and insert ("an")

Page 7, line 1, leave out from ("the") to the second ("may") in line 2, and insert ("appropriate court")

Page 7, line 3, after ("insured") insert ("or his estate")

Page 7, line 5, leave out ("under") and insert ("by virtue of")

Page 7, line 9, at end insert: ("In this subsection the expression 'the appropriate court' means any court having bankruptcy jurisdiction, being a court within the area of whose jurisdiction the insured resided at the time when the workman acquired rights against the insurer by virtue of subsection (1) of Section seven of the principal Act, or, if the insured is a company, any court having jurisdiction to wind up the company.")—(Lord Rockley.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 [Deposits by mutual indemnity associations]:

LORD ROCKLEY

The Amendment to this clause is merely consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 39, after the first ("of") insert ("undertakings carried on at").—(Lord Rockley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

LORD ROCKLEY moved, after Clause (4), to insert:

Incidental provisions as to compensation trusts.

"5.—(1)The trustees under any compensation trust shall be deemed to be trustees not only for the person creating the trust and any person representing his estate, but also for the workmen to whom payments are to be made out of the trust fund, and the due administration of the trust shall he enforceable accordingly and the provisions contained in a compensation trust in accordance with the Schedule to this Act shall be valid, notwithstanding any rule against perpetuities.

(2) So much of Section sixty-seven of the County Courts Act, 1888, as limits the jurisdiction of a County Court with respect to the execution of trusts, shall not apply in relation to any compensation trust."

The noble Lord said: This is merely a new clause explaining compensation trusts.

Amendment moved— After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Rockley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5:

Interpretation.

5. In this Act the following expressions have the meanings hereby respectively assigned to them, that is to say,—

"Mine" and "owner" have the meanings respectively assigned to those expressions by Section one hundred and twenty-two of the Coal Mines Act, 1911;

LORD ROCKLEY moved to omit the definitions of "mine" and "owner" and insert: 'Mine,' includes every shaft in the course of being sunk, and every level and inclined plane in the course of being driven, and all the shafts, levels, planes, works, tramways and sidings, both below ground and above ground, in and adjacent to and belonging to the mine, but does not include any part of such premises on which any manufacturing process is carried on other than a process ancillary to the getting or dressing of minerals or the preparation of minerals for sale.

The noble Lord said: This is a definition Amendment of what a "mine" means, and meets with the approval of legal authorities.

Amendment moved— Page 8, leave out lines 35 to 38, and insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Buckley.)

LORD GAINFORD

The whole of the Amendments to Clause 5 are merely reciting words which are already in the existing Act, and in the opinion of my legal advisers the Amendments are quite unnecessary. Why is it stated that those who receive a royalty are not to be included when these exceptions are not in the original Bill? I do not take exception to the noble Lord's words, but they are unnecessary.

LORD ATKIN

I quite agree with my noble friend that the addition of these words does not add to what is already in the Bill, but most of us, and especially those who construe Statutes, have an objection to legislation by reference. It is far better that, definitions should appear in the Bill, and all, as I understand, that the Amendments do is to put into the Bill words which are now in the Coal Mines Act of 1911. I think it is a very good principle.

LORD ROCKLEY

Lord Atkin has replied exactly as I had intended to reply. I think many of us who have been in the House of Commons have heard legislation by reference denounced over and over again. It is a very inconvenient practice, and Committees in the House of Commons have repeatedly denounced it. It is really to carry out the principle that we should not have legislation by reference that these Amendments are moved.

LORD GAINFORD

I quite agree as to the inconvenience of legislation by refer- ence, but my observations were really intended to apply to the second Amendment of the noble Lord.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— 'Owner,' in relation to any coal mine, means any person who is the immediate proprietor or lessee or occupier of the mine or any part thereof, and in relation to a mine the business whereof is carried on by a liquidator or receiver, means the liquidator or receiver, but does not include any person who—

  1. (a) merely receives a royalty, rent or fine from the mine; or
  2. (b) in the case of a mine subject to any lease, grant or licence for the working thereof, is merely the proprietor of the mine; or
  3. (c) is merely the owner of the soil and not interested in the minerals of the mine; or
  4. (d) is merely a contractor for the working of a part of the mine or for the execution of any particular work thereat").—(Lord Rockley.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clause agreed to.

Schedule:

SCHEDULE.

Requirements as to Form, Administration, and Provisions of Compensation Trusts,

7. The trust shall also provide for the following matters, that is to say— (1) for requiring the trustees to effect, maintain, and enforce such contracts of insurance as may be necessary to cover the risk of the trustees having to make payments out of the fund by way of compensation in respect of the deaths of five or more workmen resulting from any one accident, and for securing that any sums paid to the trustees in settlement of a claim under any such contract of insurance shall form part of the fund; and

LORD ROCKLEY

All my Amendments to the Schedule are of a drafting character.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

That being so, with the permission of the Committee I will put them en bloc.

Amendments moved— Page 10, line 7, after ("between") insert ("the person who, at the time of the execution of the deed, is") Page 10, line 8, leave out ("owner") and insert ("settlor") Page 10, line 11, leave out ("owner") and insert ("settlor") Page 10, line 12, leave out ("owner") and insert ("settlor") Page 10, line 18, leave out ("owner") and insert ("settlor") Page 10, line 25, leave out from the second ("that") to ("for") in line 37, and insert ("whenever, by reason of any award or judgment against, or agreement or admission entered into or made by or on behalf of, the settlor or any person representing his estate, any sum becomes payable by way of compensation (being compensation which the settlor or his estate is liable under the principal Act to pay in respect of the employment of a workman, in the relevant period, by the settlor or any other person for the purposes of the undertaking carried on at the coal mine to which the trust relates) the trustees will, on behalf of the settlor or the person representing his estate, as the case may be, pay the amount of that sum out of the fund to the person entitled under the principal Act to receive it") Page 11, line 3, leave out ("by the owner") Page 11, line 7, leave out ("owner") and insert ("settlor") Page 11, line 11, leave out ("owner") and insert ("settlor") Page 11, line 12, leave out ("owner") and insert ("settlor") Page 11, line 14, leave out ("owner") and insert ("settlor") Page 11, line 33, leave out ("to meet emergencies") Page 11, line 36, leave out ("owner's") Page 11, line 45, leave out from ("reserve") to ("necessary") in line 46. Page 12, line 4, leave out ("of the owner") Page 12, line 9, leave out ("of the owner") Page 12, line 25, leave out ("owner") and insert ("settlor or the person (if any) representing his estate") Page 12, line 28, leave out ("of the owner") Page 12, line 30, leave out ("owner") and insert ("settlor") Page 12, line 31, leave out from ("forthwith") to ("by") in line 32 and insert ("after any certificate has been duly transmitted") Page 12, line 43, leave out from ("make") to ("resulting") in line 45 and insert ("out of the fund payments of compensation in excess of fifteen hundred pounds in respect of deaths of workmen").—(Lord Rockley.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD GAINFORD moved, in paragraph 7 (1), after "deaths," to insert "in excess." The noble Lord said: I do not know whether the noble Lord in charge of the Bill understands the usual practice in connection with these trust concerns. The practice is for the responsibility for the payment of compensation for the first four, five or six deaths to be undertaken by the firm itself, and that could not exceed at the outside £3,000. Therefore it is usual (and I have a policy in my hand) to insure for all in excess of five, rather than insure the whole lot at double the rate of premium which they would have to pay for a policy covering any deaths. There is no risk whatsoever run by the workmen's representative of failing to get, say, £400, £500, or £600 compensation for an accident, because it is inconceivable that any firm carrying on a colliery should not possess sufficient assets to cover that amount. Therefore the practice has grown up to reduce the rates of premium to about ninepence—or up to 1s. 8d. in the most dangerous collieries—when the employer takes all the risk of the first five deaths in an accident; whilst any serious accident endangering the lives of more men would be insured against and the premium would be just half the amount if the smaller number of deaths is excluded. It is in order to meet this general practice in connection with all insurances of this kind that I move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 45, after ("deaths") insert ("in excess").—(Lord Coinford.)

LORD ROCKLEY

I think my Amendment with regard to amounts in excess of £1,500 really meets the noble Lord's point. My Amendment says that the trust fund has to insure only for death claims which exceed £1,500 in one catastrophe. This figure is based on the fact that the average cost of a death in the mines is £300, so that it is equivalent to insurance of all deaths over five in number. It would therefore seem to be what Lord Gainford really desires to accomplish, and the Amendment meets his case.

THE EARL OF FEVERSHAM

As the noble Lord, Lord Rockley, has just said, his Amendment to the Schedule, page 12, line 43, is, I think, a compromise and has to some extent met the point of the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite. The plan of the promoters of the Bill is simpler, inasmuch as it does not involve any averaging and other like difficulties, for the actuary can base his calculation on the assumption that anything in excess of £1,500 will be recovered from the insurance company by the trustees. I am told that the official statistics show that the average cost of a death claim in the mining industry is about £300, so that £1,500 represents the normal cost of five such claims.

But I would like to point out that there is much to be said far leaving the Bill in its present form. The present position is regarded as being a reasonable and simple compromise between the representations of the coal owners and the arguments of others that the Bill should be amended in the opposite direction and that the figure "five" should be altered to "four," or three, or even (though this would be very complicated) that the trustees should be required to re-insure in respect of disablement as well as fatal cases resulting from a catastrophe causing more than a certain number of deaths or disablements. In another place there was much discussion on the question of allowing compensation trusts, and as to requiring the trustees to re-insure some of the risks, and at that time assurances were given to the miners' representatives that the provisions in the Bill as to compensation trusts offered a sound alternative to the coal miner insuring all the risks with an insurance company or a mutual indemnity association. It would appear important that the Bill should err on the side of financial soundness of the trust funds, especially as these trusts are in the nature of an experiment. I hope therefore that your Lordships will approve of the compromise that the promoters of the Bill have endeavoured to reach by not accepting the Amendment of the noble Lord opposite, but agreeing to that which your Lordships have already approved of in line 43.

LORD GAINFORD

I will not press the point, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ROCKLEY

The remaining Amendments are drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 13, line 1, leave out ("owner") and insert ("settlor")

Page 13, line 5, leave out ("owner") and insert ("settlor")

Page 13, line 9, after ("trust") insert ("and any remuneration which by the terms of the trust is payable out of the fund to any of the trustees")

Page 13, line 10, at end insert: ("(4) for securing that all such obligations to make payments to the fund as are imposed by the trust on the settlor in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Schedule shall, where the settlor is an individual, be binding on his estate; and")

Page 13, line 28, at end insert: ("In the application of this paragraph to a compensation trust which is governed by the law of Scotland, there shall be substituted for the reference therein to Section one of the Trustee Act, 1925, a reference to the Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921.")

Page 13, line 34, leave out from ("means" to the end of line 41 and insert ("liability under the principal Act incurred by the settlor or any person representing his estate in respect of the employment of workmen by the settlor or any other person for the purposes of the undertaking carried on at the coal mine to which the trust relates, and the liability under the principal Act which is so incurred in respect of the employment of workmen as aforesaid in any particular period shall be taken to be the compensation liability attributable to that period")

Page 13, leave out lines 43 to 45 and insert ("being a member of one or more of the following bodies, that is to say—

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.