Sitting of 15 November 1923

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (No. 2) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House I beg to move, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Bill through all its stages. I do not know whether any noble Lord desires to ask questions in relation to this Motion, but I need not say that I shall be only too ready to give any information on the matter.
Moved, That Standing Order No. XXXIX be considered in order to its being dispensed with.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
LORD BUCKMASTER: My Lords, I am certain that the noble Marquess would gladly assist us with information upon this Motion, if, indeed, any information could give us any assistance at all. It is plain that it cannot. Here is a Bill of great importance, of which the Second Reading will shortly be moved before your Lordships, to which this House must consent or the Bill will be lost, and there is no option left to any of us except to assent to the Motion. I very greatly regret that it covers a measure which I think needs the full and careful discussion which is due to the Bill which has just been read a first time.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I understand and sympathise with the feeling of the noble and learned Lord. It is not merely that there is only a very short time before this Session and this Parliament will come to an end and in which this business must be transacted, but that if the Bill is not passed into law there will be a lacuna. The existing legislation comes to an end and, therefore, it is absolutely necessary
22
that some legislation should be passed. The only question with His Majesty's Government was whether we should proceed with this Bill or try to get some interim arrangement put through. It was thought that, after all the trouble and time that had been expended on this Bill in another place, it would be very inadvisable to try to make an interim arrangement. Such arrangements are always very unsatisfactory. It is for that reason, and that reason alone, that I am asking your Lordships to take what I feel, and what I always felt when I was in a position of less responsibility, to be a very exceptional course.
On Question, Motion agreed to: Standing Order No. XXXIX suspended accordingly.
THE MARQUESS OF BATH: My Lords, I have now to move the Second Reading of the Bill. I think my noble friend has stated what is perhaps the most urgent reason for proceeding with it in the way in which we are doing this afternoon. But there is also the fact that the Act which this Bill purports to amend and extend has been in existence for some seventeen years, and I fear that its life has not been a very quiet one. It has received a good deal of battering, I believe, even at the hands of your Lordships, acting in another capacity. It is desirable that if we can we shall do something to prevent the constant unnecessary litigation which is caused by the uncertainty in which the provisions of that measure now stand. The present Bill endeavours to clear up certain points which have arisen in the course of past years in regard to the interpretation of the Act of 1906. It places the workman in a more satisfactory position, and the employer, too will find, I trust, that in many respects his task and his liabilities have been simplified under the Bill. It is, as your Lordships know, a Bill of great and very intricate detail; but there is no question of a new principle arising. All the points really arise on the clauses, and I propose, with your Lordships' permission, to deal with the Bill on that assumption.
The point to which I think I should allude first is that an Act was passed in 1917, and another in 1919, providing for war additions to the compensation payable to workmen. In the latter Act the

23
addition amounted to 75 per cent., so that a man who was receiving £l a week under the Act of 1906 would get as much as 35s. In the same year a Departmental Committee was set up to enquire into the whole question of workmen's compensation. That Committee reported in the following year, 1920, and the Report is known as the Holman Gregory Report from the name of the Chairman of the Committee. That Committee made a number of recommendations on which this Bill is founded; but in a good many respects the Bill does not go so far as those recommendations. In some cases it does not adopt them and in many other cases it varies them. The reason for that is, generally, that at the time the Committee reported in July, 1920, there was a boom in trade and the cost of living was very high: in fact, the cost of living went on rising until, I think, November of that year. Since that time it has fallen to less than half of what it was then, and at the same time, there has been, as your Lordships know, a depression in trade, which still continues. It was felt that it would be unfair to industry generally to put such heavy burdens upon it as were contemplated by the Report, while at the same time those who come under the scheme also benefited from the drop in the cost of living.
The first thing that the Bill does is to repeal these War Addition Acts. They would naturally have expired themselves at the end of this year, and, in fact, have only been kept going by the Expiring Laws Continuance Act. They are not in that Act this year, and they will die at the end of December, but we have made their demise further sure by emphasising it in this Bill. There is, however, this one provision. Existing cases will continue to get the benefits of those Acts, and any workman who suffers total incapacity by accident occurring before the end of the year and before those Acts expire will come under their provisions. Correspondingly he will not come under the provisions of this Bill as to benefits.
The next matters dealt with by the Bill are increases in the compensation payable on deaths from accidents, and for total and partial incapacity. By the 1906 Act the minimum compensation payable was £150, and the employer was not liable for a larger amount of com-
24
pensation than £300. By this Bill those sums are raised from £150 to £200, and in cases where children are left, from £300 to £600. This larger sum is decidedly less than was recommended by the Departmental Committee, but, as I have already tried to explain to your Lordships, the Government felt that this was a large enough sum to put on industry at this time. In the case of death, the Committee pointed out, there were several anomalies under the Act of 1906. A young widow with no child might be awarded the same compensation as one with a number of children. She might re-marry, while the other would struggle to maintain her family, and, as the Committee say in their Report, no suggestion throughout their Inquiry received a body of support so strong and so nearly unanimous as the suggestion that in awarding compensation regard should be had to the number and condition of the dependants left by the deceased worker. The Bill provides that where a workman leaves a widow or other member of his family wholly or mainly dependent upon his earnings, and in addition, leaves one or more children under the age of fifteen, the compensation payable to the dependants shall be increased by an amount equivalent to a weekly allowance of 15 per cent. of the workman's average weekly earnings, subject to a limit of £2, in respect of each child up to the age of fifteen.
There was issued during the early part of this Session a Memorandum—I think it was put into all your Lordships' hands-explaining certain proposals of this Bill with regard to its benefits. I have that Memorandum which, of course, is not strictly correct now owing to the fact that 10 per cent. has been changed into 15 per cent. The effect, of course, is to increase the liability of the employer. Take the first case alone. The widow with one child, instead of getting £304. 4s. will, with this addition of 5 per cent., get a sum of £339 6s. I have the revised figures here, and if any of your Lordships desire to see them I shall be pleased to hand them over. With regard to total incapacity the Act of 1906 placed the maximum at £l. This Bill raises that maximum to 30s., and, in the case of a workman earning less than 50s. and entitled, therefore, to a maximum payment of less than 25s., he is to be given

25
an additional weekly allowance equal to one half of the difference between the weekly payment and either the sum of 25s. or his average weekly earnings, whichever is the smaller. The effect of that is to give the lower paid classes of workmen a very distinct advantage in an allowance of 75 per cent. of their earnings, and, so far as this Bill is concerned, it is certainly not less favourable but even more favourable than the proposals of the Committee.
With regard to partial incapacity, the Act of 190G provided that the weekly allowance, in cases of partial incapacity, must in no case exceed the difference between the amount of the average weekly earnings of the workman before the accident and the average weekly amount which he was able to earn after the accident, but, should bear such relation to the amount of that difference as in the circumstances of the case might appear proper. The effect of this has been that while I believe in a very large number of cases an allowance of half—that is, half between the pre-accident and the post-accident wages—has been awarded by Judges, some have been given less than a half, some have been given two-thirds, and some have even been given up to 100 per cent. of the difference It is proposed in subsection (3) of Clause 4 to adopt the principle of the Committee, though not actually the Committee's figures. The partially disabled workman who earned 50s. or more will get 50 per cent while the workmen who earn less than 50s. will get an amount varying from 50 to 75 per cent. of the difference Here, again, the lower-paid workman gets a substantial improvement in his position. It is hoped that by fixing a definite scale we may reduce this want of uniformity and also prevent a good deal of unnecessary litigation. There is one other matter which arises on this point. Under the Act of 1906 there was a special provision for youths under twenty-one years of age. They will now come under the benefits provided for the lower-paid workers, and that portion of that Act is repealed.
The next point to which I want to draw your attention is one which has caused a good deal of discussion; that is, the waiting period. The 1906 Act provided that compensation is only payable if the incapacity lasts more than a week, but it dates back if the incapacity lasts
26
two weeks or more. The Committee's Report showed that these provisions have worked very badly and afford a strong incentive in cases of more or less trivial injuries for the man to absent himself from work for fourteen days in order to receive full compensation, and the Committee therefore recommended a waiting period of three days without any dating back. The Bill gives effect to that recommendation, except that where the incapacity lasts twenty tight days or upwards the compensation will be dated back, and it has this further advantage, that it coincides with the rule of the National Health Insurance Acts by which sickness benefit dates from the fourth day of incapacity. The Bill, of course, gives power to the Registrar to revise existing schemes in order to bring them into accordance with the provisions of the measure.
The next point which arises is one that is connected with three innocent words which have perhaps caused more dispute than anything else—the words "arising out of". The Act decrees that compensation is payable in respect of personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment, and provides that if the injury is attributable to serious and wilful misconduct compensation shall, unless the injury results in death or serious and permanent disablement, be disallowed. The main ground for this exception was that really the sufferers are the innocent dependents of the man and that in the case of death the man's lips are sealed and he is unable to give his evidence and clear himself from reproach.
But, since 1906, there has been a series of decisions in the Court of Appeal and in this House, the general effect of which is that whenever a workman meets with an accident through doing some act which is expressly forbidden, or which it is unreasonable he should do, he is held to be acting outside the scope of his employment and the accident does not arise out of the employment. The object of this clause is to restore the provision to what it was intended to be in 1906, by bringing within its scope all accidents causing death or serious and permanent disablement which befall a workman while in the course of his work, notwithstanding the fact that he may be contravening some regulation of the employer, provided

27
always he is acting for the purposes of his employer's business. The position at present is very unsatisfactory. It is not every case of misconduct that disqualifies a man for compensation. The Courts have drawn a number of distinctions, in particular between doing something recklessly in the course of his employment and acting outside the sphere of his employment altogether. In the first case compensation may be allowed, unless precluded by serious and wilful misconduct. The result has been that a large number of cases are being brought into the Courts in order to see on which side of the line the case falls, and unless something is done this litigation is bound to continue.
I would further urge that the performance of some duty entrusted to him in a negligent or reckless manner may be productive of far more injury to the man himself and to others than some act altogether outside the scope of his employment. If a man acts in a dangerous manner, if he is uninfluenced by the fear of the danger to his own life or the loss of a limb, then he is not likely to be much affected by a fear as to whether compensation is likely to be paid or not, and it is felt that in the case of death or serious and permanent disablement compensation should be given.
A certain number of additions are made to those who are to come under the benefits of this Bill. Share fishermen, except those wholly or mainly remunerated by share, are brought in, and power is also given to the Secretary of State to extend this clause to those paid wholly or mainly by share. The Bill is also extended in order to cover the case of the London taxicab driver who for some technical reason has been held to be outside the scope of the 1906 Act, and it also includes a very useful body of men, of whom I have no practical knowledge whatever—golf caddies, when engaged through a club. The Bill also brings within its scope those who are employed upon ships, though not actually upon the business of the ship. For instance, bandsmen on a ship, who have hitherto been held to be outside the scope of the benefit, will now come within it.
This Bill makes certain other Amendments to the original Act, including a provision as to notice of accidents. This appears in Clause 10, which tightens up the present condition of affairs and pro-
28
vides that a workman shall not be disqualified in cases in which the employer or his manager must have known that an accident has taken place. As the matter stands at present notice must be in writing and must be given to the employer by the workman. It will now be sufficient for the workman to report the accident verbally to the foreman or to some other official designated by the employer.
A good deal of discussion has arisen around the question of medical referees. Under the old Act there had to be a joint application by the employer and the workmen to the county court for the appointment of the medical referee. The Committee recommended that either party should be given the right, subject to appeal to a Judge, to have the matter finally referred to the referee, and this Bill carries out that recommendation. Further, in cases of industrial disease, where the referee decides an appeal under Section 8 of the Act, the referee is now entitled to certify the condition of the man at the time of his examination and not merely his supposed condition when examined by the certifying surgeon. The Committee were of opinion that these provisions would assist the parties and might prevent, litigation.
Now I pass to a point concerning approved societies and lump sum agreements, but before I do so I have to point out that Clause 12 of this Bill adopts yet another recommendation of the Committee, and that steps are taken to prevent excessive costs being charged in the drawing up of this agreement. Another point raised by this clause is that the approved societies, which have direct financial interest in these lump sum agreements and already have a statutory right of intervention, are given the power to be represented before the county court if they so desire in order to raise any objection to the registration of an agreement. It has been thought right to give them this power, because such agreements may affect their benefit payments very considerably.
Let me turn to the restriction imposed by the Bill upon the ending or diminishing of the weekly payments made by the employer. Up to the present the employer has had an absolute discretion to end or diminish his weekly payments

29
and to leave the workman to commence arbitration proceedings. It is obvious that this leads to many difficulties and disadvantages. The Committee wore very strongly of opinion that while some protection should be given to the employer a corresponding protection should also be given to the workman. This Bill provides that where the employer's doctor has certified that the workman is wholly or partially recovered notice must be given to the workman of the intention to end or diminish the weekly payment, and the workman may then, if he so wishes, give a counter-certificate from his own doctor. In that case the weekly payment must be, continued pending the decision of the medical referee, but the employer is entitled, under Clause 14, to pay the compensation into court to be held until the question of the state of the workman had been decided.
The Bill includes a number of other points of detail, designed to protect the workman, such as the adoption of a recommendation of the Committee extending the provisions with regard to the protection of the workman in the case of the employer's bankruptcy, where debenture holders have taken possession. This is clearly an omission from the previous Act. The Bill also gives to the Secretary of State summary power to order the detention of foreign ships so as to prevent their absconding, which has not infrequently taken place. It amends the definition of a dependent so as to ensure that the individual shall actually be dependent, wholly or partially, upon the man for the ordinary necessaries of life. It provides for the repayment of outdoor relief to the local authority, which is specially required in Scotland. It also provides this: Up to now the expenses and fees of medical referees have been paid out of public funds. Under the Act the medical referee will have the following duties: sitting with the Judge when summoned by him as assessor, reporting at the request of the Judge on certain matters, and deciding appeals against the certificate of certifying surgeons. These three things are all of a public character and therefore their expense will continue to come out of the public funds. The following matters, however, will be paid for by the parties themselves: where he gives a certificate at the request either of the
30
employer or the workman as to the condition of the workman, where he gives a certificate in cases where the workman requires to receive payment of his compensation abroad, and also where he reports as to the condition of the workman in connection with registration of lump sum agreements. These things being matters in which the parties alone are interested, the parties will have to find the fees.
Now, my Lords, a number of clauses have been put into the Bill during the last forty-eight hours. They are in the edition of the Bill which is now before your Lordships and I will allude to them if I may very briefly. Clause 15 gives power to review weekly payments on fluctuations in the rate of remuneration. This clause is based upon the recommendation of the Committee, and it carries out the idea of the Committee, if not quite in the way which they recommend. In the first place, it includes all cases of incapacity, total as well as partial. It is felt to be impossible to distinguish between the two cases, and to limit it to cases of partial incapacity. If it is fair that a partially incapacitated man should get the benefit of subsequently increased rates of remuneration in his trade, it would not be fair that a totally incapacitated man should not be treated in the same way.
In the second place, the new clause requires it to be shown that the average earnings of the particular injured workman would, during the twelve months preceding the review, as a result of fluctuations in the rate of remuneration, have been greater or less by more than 20 per cent. if he had remained uninjured and had continued in the same class of employment, Compensation is based on the average weekly earnings over a period of twelve months preceding the accident, and therefore it is necessary, for the purpose of the review, that the comparison made should be between those average earnings and what would have been his average weekly earnings for a period of twelve months preceding the date of the review.
Clause 16 is another new clause. It gives power to order partial incapacity to be treated as total incapacity in certain cases. There are two classes of case where the failure, to obtain employment" is due to causes directly connected

31
with the injury. The first class of case is that known as the "odd lot" ease, where the accident has left the workman so injured that he is fit only for special uses. In those cases the Courts have already decided that the onus is on the employer to show not only that the injured workman is capable of doing work, but also that suitable work can in fact be obtained for him. If the employer cannot show this, the workman is entitled to compensation on the total incapacity scale. The other class of case is that which is alleged to have occurred in connection with miners' nystagmus where the workman is said to have been refused employment because of his condition. It seems only fair that where the workman has taken all reasonable steps to obtain employment and has failed, and the failure is the direct result of the man's injury, full compensation should be continued, and the proposed new clause gives effect to this. An important provision is attached to the new clause, that a workman is not to have the benefit of the new clause and of the unemployment benefit as well.
Then, my Lords, there is another new clause, Clause 21. The Committee recommended that every lump sum agreement in satisfaction of liability under the Act, or which would have the effect of precluding the workman from claiming under the Act, should require to be approved by the county court. Then came the judgment in March last in your Lordships' House in Russell v. Rudd, which decided that all lump sum settlements in satisfaction of liability to make weekly payments under the Act require to be approved by the Court. This decision was understood to cover not only cases where the employer admitted liability, but also cases where liability was disputed, and it was not thought necessary, therefore, to insert any clause in the original Bill. It has since, however, been suggested by legal authorities that the decision is limited to cases where liability is admitted. The consequences of this would be two-fold—the employer who desired to evade the necessity of registration would be able to do so by refusing to admit liability, while the employer who disputed a claim, but was anxious to have a settlement approved by the Court, could only do so by admitting liability. It seems desirable to remove any uncertainty that may exist, and to
32
make it quite clear that lump sum settlements compromising claims must be registered, and the new clause has been drafted for this purpose. It will be noted that the clause contains a proviso requiring the Registrar or Judge, in dealing with the application, to have regard to the question whether or not the liability under the Act is doubtful.
There are two more clauses which have been put in. One is Clause 26, which gives power to make Orders in Council for giving effect to conventions with foreign States. This is to enable the Government to carry out reciprocal arrangements with foreign countries. These do not involve any substantial alteration in the Act, but may entail modifications of procedure and up to now a special Act of Parliament, I believe, has always been necessary. It is hoped that such special Acts may be obviated by this clause. As regards subsection (2), the Government of Northern Ireland concurs in the application of the clause.
The only other new matter in the Bill is Clause 27, in which power is given to extend the Act to aircraft crews who meet with an accident outside Great Britain. The seaman has already got his right to compensation for accidents abroad. In this case the Air Ministry are in full support of the principle, but it is difficult without further consideration to say how far the Act should be applied, and what modifications may be necessary in this particular case, and it has been agreed with the Ministry and the industry that the Secretary of State should take power in this Bill to extend the Act by Order, subject to the Order lying on the Table in each House of Parliament for twenty-one days for objections to be offered.
There are clauses at the end of the Bill which have met with no opposition, and which, I believe, will prove perhaps to be of as great value as any clauses in this Bill. One deals with the notification of accidents and assimilates to a large extent the standard for reporting accidents under the Factory and Mines Acts with the new standard for compensation, that is, the three days period. This, we hope, will be of great advantage to the employers and to all concerned. Another clause makes further provision for first aid in all factories. This is in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee, and it gives the Secretary

33
of State special powers in this matter in cases of industries where either the accidents have been very numerous or whore special sources of danger make it practically necessary.
I am afraid that in placing this Bill before your Lordships I have trespassed on your patience. I can only say I could not help it The Bill is intricate and complicated in its details and the subject, I fear, is naturally a somewhat dry one. Hut, at the same time, we believe that the Bill is one which will prove of great value to the community, and which is a distinct advance on the present condition of affairs. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Marquess of Bath.)
LOED BUCKMASTER: My Lords, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, explained to your Lordships the circumstances in which this Bill comes before you for consideration. Some stop-gap measure was obviously necessary to tide over the gap that would exist between the present law and the laws that would be passed when the next Parliament resumed its offices, and advantage was taken of the opportunity to introduce this Bill—a Bill of 31 Clauses, intended to modify and to improve the existing law relating to workmen's compensation. In these circumstances detailed examination of the terms of this measure would, of course, be a complete farce. There are placed before your Lordships two alternatives: you can accept this measure as it stands, or you can reject it. But the real duty which, I think, this House ought always to discharge is that of examining the legislation that is brought before it for consideration, and modifying it in the cases where it is thought to need modification; and that opportunity is denied to us in this case. I understand the circumstances, and I understand also that merely to protest in these conditions would be nothing but petulance. Nothing would be gained by it. We must take one of the two courses which I have indicated.
It certainly does not follow that this Bill should pass without comment, because when an Act amends existing legislation the frequent result is that that, amendment stands as the law for a considerable period of time, and I should be sorry indeed if it were thought that this
34
measure is in any way a complete or an adequate solution of the difficulties to which workmen's compensation gives rise. The noble Marquess has suggested that the measure is intended to remove some of the difficulties that have given rise to legislation. It may not be forgotten that when one of the first of these Bills was introduced in another place Mr. Chamberlain explained that one of its objects was to put an end to all litigation as between employers and employed. Proceeding upon that laudable basis there has been erected a structure of statutory enactments which, I think, have given rise to more litigation and occupied for a greater length of time the deliberations of the Courts of Justice than any other class of measure to which I could refer. At the very threshold of this difficulty there lies the provision which is the root of all workmen's compensation to-day, and that is that the injury of which a man complains must have been incurred in the course of, and arising out of, his occupation. The two things might have been assumed to mean the same thing; but, indeed, they do not. It is quite easy to get an injury which arises out of a man's employment but is not in the course of it at all. In many such cases, most undeservedly as I think, workmen have been deprived of the remedy which the Act of Parliament was intended to confer upon them.
Let me give your Lordships a simple instance from a ease which was recently before your Lordships' House. A man is engaged working on a ship which is moored by the side of a narrow tongue of land and a dense fog settles down upon the place. He leaves the shed where he is working for a natural and perfectly lawful purpose and his dead body is found in the water. The question then arises, Did his accident arise out of and in the course of his employment? Your Lordships' House were constrained to hold that it did not. If you desire to protect a man from injuries which are the natural consequence of his work it seems to me impossible that a man who loses his life in those circumstances can justly be held to be entitled to no recompense. That he was rightly held to be entitled to no recompense having regard to the existing statutes and provisions is, of course, beyond dispute. It is that class of ease which occurs again

35
and again—in which a man is in a spot that is encompassed with every form of danger and where he would never be but for the fact that he is engaged upon work. The danger results, it may be, in injury, it may be in death, and the man's dependants are deprived of compensation. It is precisely that sort of case which I should have thought would have been considered at once in any attempt to amend the existing Statutes. Nothing of the kind is to be found in this Bill at all. All those difficulties—and they are difficulties that axe constantly before the Courts—are left absolutely untouched.
The main principles of the Act are, undoubtedly, the question of the modification of the compensation, which is a wise and salutary one, and the other provisions to which the noble Marquess has most carefully and clearly called your Lordships' attention. But it seems to me that when legislation of this kind is passed in this way difficulties may arise which no one can possibly contemplate, and I cannot help thinking that Clause 7, to which the noble Marquess called attention, is an exact illustration of what I mean. What is the law at the present moment? Supposing a man in the course of his employment does an act which is forbidden by Statute—as, for example, an act in connection with the placing of explosives in coal mines—it is assumed that as the Statute has forbidden the act it cannot be within the course of his employment to perform it, and, therefore, if a man goes too near to an explosive charge after it has been placed in position but has not gone off and then the explosion takes place and he is injured, he gets no remedy. Clause 7 has been directed to meet that. At the same time, it has been held in this House, and I think more than once, that if what is done by the man, though contrary to a notice, is yet within the course of his employment, he is entitled to recover.
What does Clause 7 do? It refers to each of those classes of case, groups them both together, and declares that none the less a workman shall be entitled to compensation, but limited to cases in which the accident results in death or serious and permanent disablement. With regard to a great part of that clause there was no need for it at all, and if it is assumed that that clause is now the complete code upon the point it
36
will have the result of excluding any accident which does not result in death or serious and permanent disablement. I must say that I should have been glad of an opportunity of carefully considering such a section as that in order to see whether it was not possible so to deal with it as to make it plain that its sole purpose was to extend the remedies which the workman now possesses and not to restrict any of the benefits he at present enjoys.
There are other provisions of the same class in this Bill to which attention could be directed, and which to my mind certainly need to be elucidated and made clear. It is certain that it cannot be done. I asked to be supplied with a copy of this Bill at the earliest moment, and it was handed to me this morning when I was engaged in the judicial work of your Lordships' House. It is absolutely impossible to examine this measure in the time. I can only regret that a measure of such consequence has not been put before us in circumstances that would better enable us to discharge what I regard as our first duty towards a Bill of this kind. But as the alternative is acceptance or rejection, I unhesitatingly say that I shall accept it, because I recognise that it affords material advantages in certain respects, although I think it is a Bill that marks a great lost opportunity, and that such a measure might have been framed as would have been received by employers and workmen as a final settlement of the legislative difficulties which at present exist.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT CAVE): My Lords, I desire to say only a few words in reply to the remarks of my noble and learned friend. I do not complain in the least of the observations he has made on the manner in which this Bill comes before your Lordships' House. It is a great pity that this House has not the opportunity of exercising at leisure in connection with this Bill those functions of revision which are so well performed by the House. No one regrets that more than I do. Your Lordships know, and my noble and learned friend knows quite well, what are the reasons for that, and I am glad that the House appears to be disposed to take what he and I think would be a reasonable course. My noble and learned friend did not make any detailed

37
criticism of the Bill for the reasons which he gave. The Bill was examined with very great care and at great length by a Committee of the other House. It was criticised and examined by that Committee during a great many days. There was a further opportunity of revising it on the Report stage in another place. Therefore, although your Lordships have not had that opportunity of considering it which you would like to have, the Bill has received very careful and detailed criticism and examination.
On, the only point to which my noble and learned friend referred in detail I have a few words to say. That is Clause 7 of the Bill. As your Lordships know, it has been held in a number of cases in the Court of Appeal and in this House acting in its judicial capacity that where a workman is employed in an industry and does an act contrary to certain statutory provisions he does not do that act, and that event has not happened, in the course of his employment. Clearly, if a man ought not to do a thing and, indeed, is told not to do it, he may be said not to be acting in the course of his employment. The Courts have only to construe a Statute according to its true moaning and it is not for them to say whether it is a desirable enactment or not. It has been suggested that the law should be amended by providing in cases of that kind that although an act was done in contravention of a statute and an accident resulted, it yet gave rise to a claim for compensation if the accident resulted in death or serious or permanent injury, if the act was done by the workmen for the purposes of or in connection with his employment.
LORD BUCKMASTER: May I call the noble and learned Viscount's attention to this fact? If it were a Statutory Regulation—an express order—I would at once assent, but it has already been held in this House that an act done in breach of a Factory Regulation does not disentitle the workman to compensation if it is done within the course of his employment, and this will take away that right, I am afraid.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble and learned Lord, but that point does not arise. If it does arise it can be considered. My present view is that the point that the noble and learned Lord raises will not arise. I think that the effect of this clause is not to cut down, but to extend the workman's right to compensation. I only wish to add that any breach of the regulations may involve some perils for the workman himself. He might be more tempted to take risks if he knew that in the case of an accident the right of compensation was in any event given. There has been no other criticism upon this Bill which contains, I think, some exceedingly useful changes of the law, nearly all in favour of the workmen, and I trust that your Lordships will agree to it.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment.
Bill read 3a and passed.
House adjourned at a quarter before four o'clock till half-past ten o'clock to-morrow.