Sitting of 13 April 1934

Preamble
The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  FIREARMS ACT (1920) AMENDMENT BILL.
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  FIREARMS ACT (1920) AMENDMENT BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Amendment of 10 & 11 Geo. V. c. 43, s. 3).
    11.5 a.m.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 21, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that nothing in the Firearms Act, 1920, as amended by this Act shall prevent a person under the age of fourteen having in his possession, using, or carrying a firearm or ammunition for sporting purposes under the supervision of his parent or guardian or of a responsible person appointed for that purpose by such parent or guardian."
    I do not think that I need explain the Amendment as the words explain themselves. It appears that under the Bill a man may not take out his son and teach him how to shoot before he has reached the age of 14. Many people may think that it is wrong for anyone to handle firearms until that age, but surely that is a matter for the parent or guardian to decide, and mot for this House.
    Mr. HOLFORD KNIGHT: What about the protection of private persons endangered by such an act?
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: There is no reason why they should be endangered. When a boy went out his father or guardian would be in charge of him, and would look after him, and therefore it would be impossible for danger to occur. It is certain that if such a boy learns to handle firearms, the safer will he be when he grows up. The first thing a boy is taught when he is taken out for the purpose of handling a firearm of any sort is never to point it intentionally or unintentionally at any human being or animal unless the intention is to kill, and always to unload it when going over rough ground or when not expecting to get a shot. I may be told that the Amendment is unnecessary. The Bill states definitely—
    "a person under the age of fourteen years shall not have in his possession, use or carry a firearm or ammunition "—
    614
    under any conditions. Whatever the intention of the Bill may be, we have to consider what the Courts will consider it really means, and if it is the intention to allow a parent or guardian to take a boy out and train him before he reaches the age of 14, there can be no harm in adding words to see that the Bill carries out that intention.
    Major HARVEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
    11.8 a.m.
    Major MILLS: I wish to support the Amendment, although I do not think that it is strictly necessary, because it merely restates the law, as I understand it at the present moment. But I think it is necessary that the matter should be made abundantly clear, for this reason. In so enlightened a journal as the "Times" on the 28th February, 1934, on page 8, there was a paragraph dealing with the Bill in Committee, and it ran as follows:
    "Sale of Firearms.
    Restriction of purchase or use by the young.
    One of the main objects of the measure is to amend the age of persons who may buy firearms or to whom firearms may be sold. It also alters the definition of firearms in the Act. It is stipulated that a person under the age of 17 shall not purchase or hire a firearm or ammunition, and a person under the age of 14 shall not have in his possession, use, or carry a firearm or ammunition. The Bill also stipulates that a smoothbore shot gun, air gun, air rifle, and ammunition are to be deemed firearms."
    From that the inference is clear, that in the opinion of the "Times", no person under the age of 14 should be able to use or carry a gun. That paragraph caused consternation throughout the preparatory schools of the country. I have had several letters from juvenile constituents asking me whether they would or would not be able to carry a gun or shoot a rabbit or partridge next September, and promising to make it hot for me if the answer were unfavourable. It shows how widespread and influential the "Times" is when it appeals to boys of such an age. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department will, therefore, be able to accept the Amendment, which makes the law clear, or that, at any rate, he will make abundantly clear to the House, to the country, and to the "Times" what the position really is. I ask that he should,

    615
    by circular or otherwise, inform the police authorities of the correct interpretation of the law.
    11.10 a.m.
    Mr. KNIGHT: The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the New Forest (Major Mills) said that he might get into hot water. I have no such fears, as I am tolerably accustomed to it. I wish to apply my mind to the substantial matter raised by the Amendment. The public have been shocked from time to time by the terrible incidents caused by very young boys using firearms. The Bill seeks to put an absolute prohibition on the possession of any such weapon by a person under the age of 14, and I merely want to say that this limitation is desired by public opinion which has been shocked by these incidents, and I hope that the House will support the provision of the Bill and reject the Amendment.
    11.11 a.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I think that I may speak against the Amendment on behalf of the whole Opposition. I am a little amazed at the arguments which have been put forward in its favour. Not being an expert on these things, and particularly not being an expert on sporting affairs, I believe that if the Amendment he accepted it will practically destroy the main purpose of the Bill. All that anybody would need to do would be to prove that, when a child under 14 years of age was in charge of a weapon, it was simply for the purposes of sport, and that would be ample evidence in a court of law.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would mind reading the Amendment, which says:
    "under the supervision of his parent or guardian"—
    who would be looking after him in order to avoid any danger.
    Mr. DAVIES: The hon. and gallant Member must know that what he desires to be carried out under the law is very often impracticable. I have said on many occasions, and I repeat it, that it is not the law that we pass in the House of Commons that matters so much as the way in which that law is administered. I feel sure that I am right in saying that if the argument first pt forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman in his intervention
    616
    held good, it would mean, in effect, that a policeman would have to be present to see that the parent or guardian did his duty towards the child in charge of a pistol or revolver. I want to contravert another argument put forward by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. He said that Parliament should not interfere in this business at all, and that the parent ought to be held responsible. Frankly, Parliament has decided for a long number of years that in the relationship between the parent and the child, the welfare of the child shall be paramount, and on some occasions the State comes to the aid of the child even against the desires of the parent, because all parents have not the welfare of their own children at heart.
    I wish to say a few words concerning what was said by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the New Forest (Major Mills) in relation to preparatory schools. I can assure him that if he wants boys in preparatory schools to be outside the scope of the Bill as it now stands, he will find all manner of clubs of boys all over the country wanting the same privileges, and you cannot, in fact, say that the provisions of the Bill shall not apply to preparatory schools, but shall apply to secondary and elementary schools all over the country. In some of the mining villages of Lancashire people are very fond of pigeon-flying. I can see no reason, if the argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman prevails, why boys of 14 years of age in the mining districts should not have revolvers in order to see what they can do by shooting pigeons and birds of all kinds.
    Major MILLS: Oh, no.
    Mr. DAVIES: That is what it would mean. I feel sure that I have convinced the House that the arguments are stronger against the Amendment than they are in favour of it, and that the Government on this occasion will be on the side of the official Opposition. Whenever we make an intelligent statement and put forward a good argument, we often find the Government on our side, and I feel sure that that will be the case this morning.
    11.14 a.m.
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Hacking): I desire to intervene immediately, because it is clear from all the

    617
    speeches to which we have listened up to the present that nobody really understands the intention of the Bill. I would have liked very much to have supported my hon. Friend the Member for West-houghton (Mr. E. Davies). He is quite right in saying that whenever he makes sound contributions, the Government are invariably with him, but on this occasion I think that even he has not quite understood the meaning of the Amendment or what the Bill purports to do. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) said. I think, "It appears that no young person under 14 may go out and handle a gun." Where does the Bill say that?
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: It says, in (1B), that
    "A person under the age of fourteen years shall not have in his possession, use or carry a firearm or ammunition."
    Mr. HACKING: My hon. and gallant Friend would not agree that no person under the age of 14 may go out and handle a gun. The hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight) said that the Bill puts an absolute prohibition on the use of firearms by a child under 14, and he supports that. He is in disagreement with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton.
    Mr. KNIGHT: I think that the Undersecretary is in error on that point. I think that the hon. and gallant Member for Tiverton is right and that the Bill does place that prohibition.
    Mr. HACKING: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Nottingham desires that no person under 14 shall handle a gun, whereas my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton thinks that it is right that a person under 14 should in certain circumstances handle a gun.
    Mr. KNIGHT: I appreciate that distinction.
    Mr. HACKING: The statements that my hon. Friends have made are not correct, and their interpretation of the Bill is not correct. I admit that the Bill is not easy to comprehend. It is a Bill mainly by reference, and for that reason alone it is not very clear. I cannot believe that the effect of the Amendment is really clear to the minds of those
    618
    who have moved it and who support it. What do they desire? From the speeches of my hon. and gallant Friend it would appear that he wishes, and his friends wish, that their sons and every young person under 14 years of age may still be able to use smooth-bore shot guns, or air guns or air rifles for sporting purposes, under the supervision of their parents or guardians, or, in the words of their Amendment:
    "of responsible persons appointed by such parents or guardians."
    I think that is the desire of the hon. and gallant Member.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE indicated assent.
    Mr. HACKING: I take it that he and his friends do not desire that these young persons under 14 years of age should have in their possession the more dangerous type of firearm such as rifles, revolvers and pistols, and use them for sporting purposes.
    Lieut-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: That is so.
    Mr. HACKING: I am glad that I have correctly interpreted the wishes of my hon. and gallant Friend.
    Lieut-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: We have no objection to the small-bore rifle.
    Mr. HACKING: In the main, I have interpreted correctly the wishes of my hon. and gallant Friend. Let me deal with the Amendment. The Amendment is to Clause 1 (1), which contains two new Sub-sections, which are to be incorporated in the Act of 1920. The new Subsection (1B) is the one that is affected by the proposed Amendment. It says:
    "A person under the age of fourteen years shall not have in his possession, use or carry a firearm or ammunition."
    That deals with firearms and ammunition, but everything depends on the definition of "firearm." What is that definition? It is found in Section 12 of the Firearms Act, 1920, and that Section is to be amended by Clause 1 (2) of this Bill by the insertion of certain words at the end of Sub-section (2), of the Section, namely, after the words:
    "provisions of this Act other than"
    to insert the words:
    "those of subsection (1A) of section three or."

    619
    That Amendment by itself does not appear to mean very much, but if it is incorporated into Section 12 of the Firearms Act I hope my hon. Friends will realise what it means. Perhaps I might quote Section 12 as it will be amended by the insertion of those words. It will then read:
    "The expression 'firearm' means any lethal firearm or other weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged…."
    I am leaving out certain words which are not material for my purpose:
    "Provided that a smooth bore shot-gun or air-gun or air rifle…shall not in Great Britain be deemed to be a firearm…for the purpose of the provisions of this Act other than those of sub-section (1A) of Section three."
    It will be seen that the definition of "firearm" as any lethal firearm or other weapon of any description, only applies to the new Sub-section (1A) and does not apply to the new Sub-section (1B) of this Bill. Sub-section (1A) deals with the purchase or hire of firearms and not with the possession only. Consequently, the definition of "firearm" in the new Subsection (1B) excludes the smooth bore shot-gun, air-gun or air-rifle. Therefore, a person under the age of 14 may still have in his possession, use or carry these less dangerous weapons for the purpose of sport, if and when this Bill has passed into law.
    Perhaps I might put the matter in rather less legal phraseology and more simple language. There will be in effect, if this Bill is passed, two definitions of a firearm. The first definition applies to the new Sub-section (1A) and that definition includes all lethal firearms or other weapons. The second definition of a firearm excludes smooth bore shot-guns, air-guns and air-rifles and that definition applies to the new Sub-section (1B). If we put the position in simple terms—such simple terms as are never put in an Act of Parliament—the new Sub-section (1B) would read somewhat as follows:
    "A person under the age of fourteen years shall not have in his possession, use or carry a firearm other than a smooth bore shot-gun, air-gun or air-rifle."
    I hope I have made that matter clear. I can assure my hon. Friends that the new Sub-section (1B) simply restates the existing law relating to the possession, use or carrying of a firearm by a person under 14 years of age. My hon. and
    620
    gallant Friend suggests that if this not absolutely clear we ought to put in words which would make the position more clear than it is at the present time. His Amendment would do more than he intends it to do. If carried, his Amendment would make a very far-reaching change in the law. It would, in fact, enable these young persons under 14 years of age to have in their possession and to use for sporting purposes the more dangerous type of lethal weapon, as well as the smooth-bore shot-gun. I submit that those more dangerous types of weapons need not be, and should not be used for such purposes as he desires. Unless and until the Bodkin Committee, which is sitting at the present time investigating the whole of this problem, reports in favour of such a change as would ensue if this Amendment were carried. I would ask my hon. Friends not to press the Amendment to a Division. I hope that I have made a rather difficult matter fairly clear, and I ask the promoters of the Bill to support me in my request and refuse to accept the Amendment. In fact, I hope, after my explanation, that the hon. and gallant Member will withdraw it.
    11.26 a.m.
    Mr. WISE: In spite of the very admirable explanation of the Under-Secretary of State I hope that before the Amendment is withdrawn some other of its implications may be considered. Subsection (1) (1A) says:
    "A person under the age of seventeen years shall not purchase or hire a firearm or ammunition."
    The Under-Secretary has told us that a firearm or ammunition will include a ·23 rifle. Hon. Members may sometimes frequent amusement parks, and, if so, they will find there rifle ranges where people are encouraged to shoot for prizes at innocuous articles, such as clay pipes and glass bottles. If I read the Bill correctly, this will be denied to anybody under 17 years of age. There is little doubt that the proprietor of a booth in charging a penny or twopence for three shots is, in fact, hiring a firearm—
    Mr. HACKING: May I explain the position in order to save time? Section (1) (i) (h)of the Firearms Act, 1920, which is not amended by the Bill, reads:
    "Provided that no offence under this section shall be deemed to be committed

    621
    in the case of any person conducting or carrying on a miniature rifle range or shooting gallery at which no firearms are used other than miniature rifles not exceeding 23 calibre."
    Mr. WISE: The Sub-section does not apply to the existing law at all. There is only one other point, and that is the question of a toy under the age of 14 years being allowed to shoot rabbits and such things with a small bore rifle. I think it should be possible to introduce some words which would allow this to take place. There is no reason why a boy should be trained to shoot with a smooth-bore gun only. I was probably brought up militaristically. I was taught to shoot with a small-bore revolver when I was 7, but I do not think that I was dangerous to my neighbours, or that I have grown up unnecessarily blood-thirsty. I hope that no undue restrictions will be put on the training of boys in their sporting activities at as early an age as possible.
    11.29 a.m.
    Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: The Under-Secretary of State has said that no one seems to have understood the intention of the Bill. I thought that some of us did, but I am not quite sure that I am any clearer as to its intentions after his speech than I was before. He certainly made a statement which was simpler than the Bill, but there is one point upon which I am still not quite sure. He read out the words in Subsection (1):
    "A person under the age of 14 years shall not have in his possession, use or carry a firearm or ammunition."
    The carrying of the ammunition is the point upon which I am not clear. I think that it is legal for a boy to carry a cartridge bag, and I hope that this privilege will not be taken away. If my understanding of the Bill be correct, he will still be able to carry a cartridge bag. At any rate, my position, as far as this point is concerned, is that I shall be quite satisfied if the Under-Secretary can assure me that a boy carrying a cartridge bag on a day's shooting will not be interfered with. Let me say a word in regard to the speech made by the hon. Member who spoke for "the whole of the Opposition." I agree with him on one point. In regard to a rifle range at a preparatory school, I cannot see why a similar kind of rifle range should not be used in
    622
    any other school. It would allow children, under proper supervision, to know the danger, among other things, and the use of firearms, and I agree with the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tiverton (Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte) that we do not want to make it exclusive.
    There was another passage in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member which rather left me guessing, and that was as to whether parents should have the right of dealing with these things in their own family circles, or whether the House of Commons should step in and deal with it. I think the balance of the position, as far as his speech was concerned, is that where it is a matter of ordinary home life the parents should have control; but what is really wanted to be stopped is the indiscriminate use of pistols by young people in public places of any kind. That, I think, is the real purpose behind the Bill, and, as far as I am concerned, I cannot see that there is anything in the Sub-section or in the Bill, or in the Amendment, which in any wey goes against that principle. If the Under-Secretary takes the view that the Amendment is superflous, and that nothing is going to be done under it which will in any way change the existing law, then I agree that the Amendment is superflous. There are, indeed, one or two things which make the Amendment rather difficult to accept. It says:
    "using or carrying a firearm or ammunition for sporting purposes under the supervision of his parent."
    The words "under the supervision" tie it down very tightly indeed. It is quite likely under the Amendment that you may be able to have supervision, but you would occasionally get circumstances where the supervision could not be as close as it might be, and there are also cases where it is not necessary. I am afraid that the Amendment goes a long way beyond what the hon. and gallant Member desires. Lawyers will get busy with it, and various interfering bodies like Socialists, and Fascists too, if you like. I do not see that one is much better or worse than the other. They are both interfering. But I do not wish to pursue that subject. The Amendment looks to me rather as if it went considerably further than is intended, and that the interpretation of it might defeat the

    623
    object in view. In the circumstances I cannot vote for the Amendment, although there is nothing I dislike more than voting against my two hon. and gallant Friends. I ask them whether they cannot withdraw the Amendment, and particularly for one reason. An hon. and learned Friend who came in and spoke just now said he was shocked by the Amendment. That is not a thing that we ought to do on Friday afternoon. That is an additional reason why I can appeal to the proposer of the Amendment to withdraw it.
    11.36 a.m.
    Mr. HACKING: There is one point still to be cleared up, and it is rather an important point. We do not want to have any misunderstanding of the Bill. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) asked whether a boy could carry a cartridge bag. Again it all depends on the definition of the word "firearm." The ammunition goes with the firearm. I have told the House that the new Sub-section (1B) says, in simple language, that a person under the age of 14 years may have in his possession, use or carry, a smooth bore shot gun, rifle or air gun. He may have these things in his possession. He may also have ammunition in his possession.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Is it quite clear under the law that if he may have a gun in his possession the ammunition comes under the same rule, or vice versa?
    Mr. HACKING: It says so in the new Sub-section. The ammunition is for that particular form of firearm. If he can carry the firearm he can carry the ammunition for that particular form of weapon. I think the matter is clear. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest (Major Mills) made a point with which I should have dealt. He quoted from the "Times." I think I got his quotation correctly:
    "A person under the age of 14 shall not have in his possession, use or carry, firearms or ammunition."
    That was the extract from the "Times." It certainly did infer that no person under 14 could have in his possession or use a smooth bore shot gun or any other weapon. That again depends on the definition of the word "firearm." That statement in the
    624
    "Times" was true, but it was misleading. The definition "firearm," so far as persons under 14 are concerned, excludes the smooth bore shot gun, air gun or air rifle. Therefore, it would be much more accurate for the "Times," instead of saying:
    "A person under the age of 14 shall not have in his possession, use or carry, firearms or ammunition,"
    to have said that young persons under 14 shall not have in their possession the more dangerous types of firearm. That would probably have been more easily understood. I hope that with that explanation, and with the reassertion that the Amendment is not necessary, my hon. and gallant Friend will withdraw it.
    Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: In view of the very careful explanation of the Under-Secretary, for which I thank him, and the very touching appeal of my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. SPEAKER: I do not know whether the next Amendment is necessary or not.
    11.40 a.m.
    Major MILLS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out "smooth bore gun shot or".
    I move this Amendment for the purpose of clearing up another small point. I do not quarrel with the intention of the new Subsection (1A), which prevents the sale of firearms of practically any sort to young persons under 17, that is to say, any dangerous firearm. I want one point to be cleared up. If a boy by his own thrift or by the generosity of others has in the past been able to buy a smooth bore shot gun and to use it, is this Bill to be retrospective and will it be impossible for him to own that gun any longer, or has he to transfer it to someone else? I do not think that that is the intention.
    Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. HACKING: The Bill is not retrospective. If a boy has one of these smooth bore shot guns in his possession now, of course he will be able to continue to use it. The question of use comes in under (1B). He will not in future be able to purchase under (1A).

    625
    The effect of the Amendment would be to enable a young person under 17 years of age to purchase a smooth bore shot gun, but he would not be able to purchase an air gun or air rifle. We think it is right that a young person should be able to use this type of weapon, the smooth bore shot gun or air gun or air rifle, but we do not think that he should be able to purchase any of these three weapons. It is far better that someone with greater knowledge, someone older, parents or guardian, should buy these weapons for their children, and then they would know that their children were in possession of them. That is the real change in the Bill. In other words we believe that the purchase of these three types of weapons or any other dangerous weapons should be made by the parents.
    Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: Suppose that a boy is one of those who like exchanges. Is he allowed to exchange something for a gun? That is rather an important point.
    Mr. HACKING: I think the answer would be that he would be purchasing this particular gun not for cash but by a form of barter, and that that definitely would be a purchase.
    11.45 a.m.
    Mr. SIMMONDS: Notwithstanding what my right hon. Friend has just said, I feel obliged to support the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest (Major Mills). I have the honour of representing a division of Birmingham in which the gun trade is centred, and many of my constituents have given careful consideration to this Bill. They are not opposed to the principle of Clause 1, new Subsections 1 (A) and 1 (B), but this is the important factor to bear in mind. We feel that in Subsection (2) the Clause enters upon very dangerous ground. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already appointed a committee under the chairmanship of Sir Archibald Bodkin to go into the whole question of the definition of "fire-arm", and I would ask my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary whether he does not think that the Bill would be much better if Subsection (2) were omitted, and if the question were left open until that committee had reported.
    I am informed that the most dangerous weapon for children to buy is what is known as the toy-pistol, which is largely
    626
    manufactured abroad and imported here. Many of these toy-pistols when they are bought have solid muzzles, but one has only to saw them off, as many boys do, and it is possible to insert a cartridge and file a shot from one of these pistols exactly as from a revolver. Considering the good intentions of this Bill and one's natural desire to support them, it is a pity that there has been this attempt to traverse ground which is so complicated that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has appointed a more or less expert committee to go into the whole matter. As you, Mr. Speaker, have ruled that it would not be in order to move to leave out Subsection (2), all I can do is to express my regret that it has been put into the Bill at all, but I would support my hon. and gallant Friend in seeking to delete the words "smooth bore shot gun" and I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would tell us his view of this modification of the term "fire-arm" in view of the work of the committee which is now sitting.
    11.50 a.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I be allowed to ask a question which I think is of vital importance? I put that question now, because we have present with us a very distinguished lawyer in the person of the hon. and learned Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Knight). That is the question of whether, under the provisions of this Bill, a boy would be allowed to barter some other article for one of these weapons or not? I think we ought to have a definite legal opinion on that matter. It is a very difficult legal point, and one on which we ought to be informed. I realise that the technical position has already been discussed in relation to purchase, but there are alternatives, and, if we are going to pass this Bill at all, we ought to try to make it watertight. On the principle of whether a person under the age of 17 should be allowed to buy these things or not, I am inclined to agree with the Government. There have been great difficulties in this connection and there will be great difficulties in this case unless we make the law clear on the point.
    The real trouble, and it is a trouble in many families, is that when a boy has some money given to him, it is very difficult to stop him from buying articles

    627
    of this nature. It would be better to lay it down clearly to the shopkeepers that there should be a perfectly clear add open transaction in every case between those who are responsible for the boy and the boy himself. The ordinary air-gun can carry a considerable distance, and has considerable penetrative power. It could penetrate the heads of most Conservatives in the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I agree that it would not penetrate five or six inches of solid wall. I do not think my hon. and gallant Friend who moved this Amendment realises the enormous increase in the facilities available for the purchase of these things. We have to take into account a great many aspects of life in this crowded country when framing regulations of this kind, and it is those who are in control of young people who ought to have the last word on this matter, because theirs is the responsibility. As to leaving out the smooth bore shot gun, I shall be compelled to vote against this Amendment if it is carried to a Division.
    11.53 a.m.
    Sir ASSHETON POWNALL: On the point raised by the hon. Member for Duddeston (Mr. Simmonds) with regard to the committee which is sitting under the chairmanship of Sir Archibald Bodkin, I happen to be serving on that committee, and if the hon. Member turns up the terms of reference he will see that the committee is dealing with the classification and description of firearms, and their work has nothing to do with a sweeping inquiry into the administration of the Act as a whole. The special point with which we are dealing here is purely in reference to the question of the age at which it is possible to buy these firearms, and that is a matter which is not in our terms of reference.
    Mr. SIMMONDS: Am I not right in saying—
    Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.
    Major MILLS: I am perfectly satisfied with the answer which I have received from my right hon. Friend, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    11.55 a.m.
    Sir A. POWNALL: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
    May I express the hope that this small Measure of practical disarmament, or limitation of armaments, may have a smoother passage than other measures of disarmament of which we have heard a great deal in the last two years? Owing to the fact that the House sat all night on the Thursday night prior to the Friday on which this Bill was to be taken, there was no Second Reading Debate. The Bill was given a Second Reading unopposed, and it is therefore necessary for me on this occasion to deal with a few points in connection with it. I ought to apologise for the rather complicated language used in the Bill. The necessity for it arises from the fact that the Act of 1920, unless read carefully, is liable to mislead, owing to the fact that smooth bore shot guns are specially excluded from the description of firearms. Most people naturally think that a small bore shot gun is a firearm, but under Clause 12 it is specifically excluded, as are air guns, from the term. A great deal of correspondence that we have had has been caused by that misunderstanding.
    The Firearms Act, 1920, had two main objectives. The first was to control firearms. At that time, just after the War, there was a large number of firearms up and down the country, of which, naturally, it was thought that control ought to be obtained; and also there had been an Arms Convention the year before, and it was necessary to get more control of the export trade. On the whole, the Act of 1920 has worked extremely well from the administrative point of view, but there has been omissions, with one of which we are dealing to-day. It has been found that young persons up to 17 have undoubtedly dangerous facilities for the acquisition of firearms. Between the ages of 14 and 17 anyone, subject to having a firearm certificate, can go into a shop and buy a rifle or other lethal weapon of that nature. That, obviously, is undesirable, and it becomes more undesirable still when we find the very great improvement, if you like to use the word, in the hitting power of many of these weapons, owing to scientific improvements in the last few years. We have no wish, as has been

    629
    carefully explained by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State in the Committee stage, to alter the powers of parents or guardians to have their young people taught the use of shot guns at any age that they should think fit, or to use rifles or even more dangerous weapons, from 14 to 17. We are legislating only that young persons should not be allowed to buy these weapons without parental knowledge.
    Several lethal weapons have been given to me in connection with this Bill, which the sons of some of my friends have bought at the ages of 10 or 12 and with which they could inadvertently commit either murder or suicide. We should stop that sort of thing under this Bill. We do not affect in any way miniature rifle clubs, which is one of the points that has been raised, and I have dealt with the protests which many hon. Members have received from the gun makers. They are not affected in any way beyond the fact that a lad under the age of 17 will not be able in future to buy a shot gun, as he can do now. The Measure is one which is generally wanted, and the amount of opposition to it has been extremely small. It provides a much needed remedy for a defect which has been found in the Act of 1920. With some 15 years' experience of this House, one knows how impossible it is to get through, on the few Fridays allotted to private Members, anything of a controversial or far-reaching nature. I suggest that a Measure of this sort, providing a remedy for a defect in a previous Act, is just the sort of use to which private Members' Fridays can be very profitably put; and I hope this Bill will be given its Third Reading.
    11.59 a.m.
    Sir JOHN PYBUS: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) has explained fully and adequately the technical details of this Bill. It has also been explained further by my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, and I do not propose to take up any time in re-covering that ground. The Bill itself is difficult at first sight. Anyone knows that when you take a great and comprehensive Measure like the Firearms Act of 1920, and seek to amend one small provision of it which occurs in many Sections, the drafting is of necessity very technical, and misunderstandings often occur. Misunderstandings
    630
    have occurred in this case as to what we propose to amend, but I hope that by now they have been set at rest. Several hon. Members have spoken and written to me under the impression that the Bill seeks to impose a new restriction on English family life and the enjoyment of the countryside, but that is not so. The Bill makes no change in the law as far as the possession, use, giving, or lending of firearms is concerned; it applies only to the purchase or hiring of firearms by persons under 17. The object is primarily to raise the age from 14 to 17.
    The indiscriminate sale of firearms in this country has reached a pitch of danger to life and limb which is urgent and needs immediate remedy. I was amazed to find, after the disclosure of one tragedy in my own constituency, how widespread is this trouble. I will give only one instance, although I could give a great many others. A sergeant-major, a retired Guardsman, in my division, a splendid fellow, who had had a long military career, settled down in Essex and started a small transport business. His family grew up, and as his business prospered he had great hopes and ambitions for his boy. Everybody liked him, and he was a first-rate fellow. One morning I got this letter from him:
    "Dear Sir,
    I take the liberty of writing to you as our M.P. I simply want to ask you if you cannot do something to restrict the sale of the so-called toy pistols—at least stop the sale of them to children. My reason for asking is this: On Saturday, 29th April, my small son, aged 12 years, emptied his money box, quite unknown to his mother or myself, then went into Colchester and bought (himself) one of these so-called toy guns and a box of ammunition for it. The result was that at 12 noon the same day he was in Colchester Hospital with a bullet in his brain, and so far in that they cannot operate and remove it. I write because I consider it my duty to do so and try to save other parents from the agony his mother and myself are suffering not knowing whether our boy will live or die. Please try to do something to stop it. As an ex-Army man, I know something of ball ammunition and what it is, and this stuff sold to my child is nothing else but ball ammunition. Hoping this will have your personal attention."
    Mr. SIMMONDS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Bill does not deal at all with the type of pistol he has mentioned in these tragic circumstances?
    Sir J. PYBUS: The boy was under 14 years old when he bought this dangerous pistol. No change is made in the definition of weapons, but no person under 17 will in future be able to buy dangerous weapons.
    Mr. SIMMONDS: He can, so far as this Bill is concerned. You have not prevented that boy by this Bill from purchasing a similar weapon again.
    Sir J. PYBUS: At present any weapon of this kind, with ammunition, can be bought over the counter, without let or hindrance, by a child of 14. This Bill raises the age to 17, and that is all that it does.
    Mr. SIMMONDS: What it does, I am informed, is to prevent these children buying firearms, smooth bore shot guns, air guns, or air rifles. These toy pistols do not fall within any of these categories, and although my hon. Friend is very well intentioned, and I support his intentions, he has not succeeded in this Bill in doing what he desires to do.
    Sir J. PYBUS: I think the hon. Member is speaking there rather without the facts. The pistol in question was a saloon pistol. I should like to have brought the weapon into the House but as hon. Members know, we are not permitted to bring firearms into this Chamber. But to continue the case I am describing. I sent that letter to the "Times," which newspaper was good enough to publish it, and I was amazed at the amount of correspondence which followed as a result and at the amount of interest that was evinced in this question. The hon. Member for the New Forest (Major Mills) said a kind word about the "Times" and in doing so convinced me that up to the present time in this Debate it was the only mind which really understood correctly what was the accurate definition of a firearm under the Act Most hon. Members seem to have mistaken ideas about it. The House will know that the ease I have quoted is not an isolated one. Hundreds of these dangerous weapons are being sold over the counter. Anybody can purchase them provided that they can convince the dealer they are 14 years of age or over. I am sure that this Bill, giving a measure of protection which will affect the safety of young children and the peace of mind of
    632
    their parents and guardians, will command the immediately sympathy of the House.
    12.7 p.m.
    Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The two hon. Members who have interested themselves in this Measure have done a public service, and I should like to congratulate them, especially the hon. Member for Harwich (Sir J. Pybus), for the interest he has taken in this question. I have a feeling, however, that the new Subsection (1B) will tend to nullify the effect of the new Sub-section (1A) but that remains to be seen. In spite of that, I feel sure that there can be no opposition to the Third Reading of this very useful Measure.
    12.8 p.m.
    Brigadier-General NATION: I heartily support the Bill in what it proposes to do. I would like, however, to draw the attention of the Minister to the Firearms Act, 1920, Section 1 (8, e)—
    "In the case of ay member of a rifle club or miniature rifle club or cadet corps approved by the Secretary of State, by having in his possession, using, or carrying a firearm or ammunition when engaged as such member in, or in connection with, drill or target practice,"
    he shall be immune from the provisions of this Bill. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the question of the cadet corps. The corps belonging to the British National Cadet Association are at the present time recognised by the War Office, that is to say, by the Secretary of State, and are affiliated to certain regiments of the Army. There was a time, only three years ago, when that recognition was withdrawn by the late Labour Government, and it is possible under future Governments that recognition may again be withdrawn. I would like to know whether, if such a thing happens, the members of those units will come under the provisions of the present Bill so that those who are under 17 years of age will not be permitted to use the arms belonging to the corps. The same thing applies, I think, to the rifle clubs throughout the country. There is a big rifle club in my constituency, a branch of the East Yorkshire Rifle Association. I do not know whether it has the approval of the Secretary of State, but, if it has not, I presume that members who are under 17 will be debarred in future from using miniature rifles on the ranges. I

    633
    would like the Minister to confirm what was declared by the promoter of the Bill during the Committee stage, namely, that he had the assurance of the Home Department that the units of the National Cadet Association and the rifle clubs throughout the country will not be affected by the provisions of the Bill.
    12.10 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I rather understood from the discussion on the Report stage of the Bill that the position of rifle clubs and cadet corps would not be changed under the Bill. I am sure that the Under-Secretary will settle that point definitely. I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) on having brought in what is a very useful public measure which fills a considerable need. There can be no doubt that in the public mind there is an idea—I think a right idea—that the indiscriminate sale of firearms of any kind to young people is bad. I am one of the last to wish to interfere with public liberty, but I think the right steps have been taken in this Bill to prevent the sale of firearms to young people under 17 and to provide that it can only be done where there is the consent of a responsible person. That seems to clear up the problem to a large extent. I entirely agree with the hon. Member who said that we could not use a Friday better than passing a Measure such as this, and due appreciation should be given to the hon. Member who has taken so much trouble to bring in this Bill.
    From the discussion we heard as to pistols, there appears to be some difficulty on that point, and I am sure the Under-Secretary to the Home Office will be able to clear it up. If there is any doubt in the Bill as to the position of toy pistols, I should like to have an assurance from the Government that the point will be properly dealt with in another place. The thing that is really agitating the public mind is not so much the use of the smooth bore gun or even the air gun, but the way in which young people can go to a shop and buy a pistol or a weapon of that kind. I cannot conceive that it has been left out of the Bill, and we should like to be assured that it will be dealt with. The Bills which we generally pass interfere with public liberty in some way, but in this Bill there is no question of doing that or of putting on a tax, and those points are in favour of the Bill.
    12.14 p.m.
    Mr. HACKING: The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) wants to know whether the toy pistol as a dangerous weapon comes under the provisions of the law. Section 12 of the Act of 1920 gives this definition of a firearm—
    "any lethal firearm or other weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet, or other missile can be discharged."
    That is a fairly sweeping definition. The question of a definition of a "firearm" so far as the future is concerned is under the consideration of the Bodkin Committee, and if any change is necessary to make the position more secure, I have no doubt that the Committee will recommend such a change, and that at some future date a Bill will be introduced based on its report.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: As the Committee are still sitting would it be possible to get the result of their inquiry on this question of toy pistols accelerated, because if their view were known in the next week or two the requisite Amendment could be inserted in the House of Lords, and that would save the necessity of having another Bill.
    Mr. HACKING: I am not a member of that Committee but I am informed that there is very little chance of their being able to come to a decision on so important a matter before this Bill passes into law, and it would be a pity to hold up this Bill for one specific point. The Bill has been shown to be necessary, and I hope my hon. Friend will not press the promoters to hold it up in order to, change an existing definition.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Oh, no; I do not want to hold up the Bill in any way, but it struck me that as the Committee were sitting, they might be about to come to a decision, and if that decision were acelerated that might assist us in clearing up this particular point; but nothing would induce me to delay the Bill.
    Mr. HACKING: I am glad my hon. Friend agrees with me. Another point was raised by the speech of my hon. and Gallant Friend the Member for East Hull (Brigadier-General Nation). He quoted paragraph (e) of sub-section (8) of Section 1 of the Firearms Act:
    "In the case of any member of a rifle club or miniature rifle club or cadet corps approved by a Secretary of State."
    He wanted an assurance with respect to the words "approved by a Secretary of

    635
    State." He recalled that a short time ago, during the period of office of the Labour Government, the War Office had withdrawn their approval of cadet corps. In point of fact, so far as the administration of the Act of 1920 is concerned, the responsibility for approval under Section 1 (8) (e) rests not with the Secretary of State for War but with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Of course, I cannot give any guarantee that a future Home Secretary will necessarily take the same view as does the present Home Secretary, but I would suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that the best means of ensuring that all these things are conducted on the right lines is by making absolutely certain that another Socialist Government never comes into power.
    Having dealt with those two points it only remains for me to repeat that this Bill only purports to make two important changes, and those changes have been very fairly stated by its promoters. Nevertheless, we do claim that this Bill is a very useful Measure, and it is definitely proved that it is necessary. It will, I hope, effectually prevent young persons from purchasing firearms in the future, and possibly damaging themselves or their friends. My right hon. Friend commends the Bill to the House and congratulates my hon. Friend the Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall) and the hon. Member for Harwich (Sir J. Pybus) and their colleagues on bringing it forward, and he has instructed me to express the hope that their efforts will at no distant date have a successful outcome.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  ADOPTION OF CHILDREN (WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION) BILL.
  As amended (in the standing Committee), considered.
  12.19 p.m.
  Mr. GALBRAITH: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time".
  Having regard to the kindly reception which this Bill has met with from every
  636
  quarter of the House, I shall not be justified in taking more that a minute or two in moving this Motion. The sole object of the Bill is to remedy a defect which a recent decision of the Court of Appeal disclosed in the Adoption of Children Act, 1926, because it was discovered that an adopted child is not entitled to the benefit of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925. When I brought forward this Bill it was backed by hon. Members in every quarter of the House, and it has passed through its previous stages with the greatest speed. In Committee there were only two or three Amendments, which I myself put forward with the object of enabling the law in Northern Ireland to be made the same as in England and Scotland. In those circumstances, I commend the Bill to the kindly consideration of the House.
  12.20 p.m.
  Mr. T. SMITH: I congratulate the hon. Member on bringing in this Bill. When it was first introduced, many people in the House who had a good deal of experience of workmen's compensation did not quite understand why the Measure was necessary, but when it was pointed out that a decision of the Court of Appeal had laid it down that an adopted child was not a child within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Acts they quite rightly believed that the Bill was necessary, and we on this side intend to offer no opposition to it. Not many cases will be affected, but I, personally, know a number of childless couples who have adopted children and brought them up as their own, and it would be a severe hardship if the husband happened to be killed and a child which they had brought up for a number of years were deprived of compensation. Therefore, we think the Bill is necessary.
  12.21 p.m.
  Mr. MAITLAND: May I say one word to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Galbraith) upon bringing in this Measure? I do so with the greater pleasure because he is my own Parliamentary representative. I am very glad to say that he is an excellent representative, because we invariably find ourselves in the same Lobby. Perhaps he has been a little too modest in his presentation of the Bill. It is particularly appropriate that he should introduce it, because it was

  637
  through his efforts in 1926 that we passed a Bill making it legally possible for children to be adopted. Now he is making it possible for those children to have the benefit of the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Acts. I congratulate him on the very smooth passage which the Bill has had so far, and I hope he will have the pleasure of seeing it on the Statute Book.
  12.22 p.m.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: While I would like to support the Measure with one or two observations, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not be offended if I say that although a very useful one it is nevertheless a restricted Measure. In spite of its provisions, none of the children who are commonly adopted will receive the benefits of workmen's compensation. They must be legally adopted. There are thousands of children who have been adopted for all purposes which would justify the payment of workmen's compensation, but because of ignorance of the law that adoption has not been legally approved by the courts, and those children in consequence will not receive workmen's compensation even under this Measure. In reply to the observations made by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department a moment or two ago, I would like to say that that when the next Socialist Government comes into power, after the next General Election, there will be no more tinkering with workmen's compensation laws. We shall go to the root of the problem and bring in a new Bill to put workmen's compensation once and for all on a proper basis, and there will then not be any private profit-making by insurance companies out of workmen's compensation. But, in spite of my criticism of this Bill, and because I think I was entitled to reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I feel bound to congratulate the promoter on this Measure being passed into law.
  12.24 p.m.
  Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I should not have spoken but for the highly provocative speech we have just heard. When my hon. Friend the Member for West-houghton (Mr. R. Davies) gets up and flings himself about in that way, it is only right that some of us should point out that he has made prophecies of various kinds in connection with workmen's compensation, and that no one has never known an occasion when he was
  638
  right. I do not think any more need be said about that. As I am on my feet, however, I should like to say one word about the position under the Bill. Apparently, if a child has been legally adopted it can get benefit from workmen's compensation, but in the case of a child which has had all the advantages of adoption, although not legally adopted, we are getting on very difficult ground. I would like to ask the representative of the Home Office whether such a child will have the benefit of the Bill? I quite see that it would wreck the whole purpose of the present Bill, but I think that it is a point that might be considered. The hon. Members who have promoted these two Bills are to be congratulated upon the speeches which they have made, and upon having accomplished a useful bit of work. It is utterly wrong that the present condition of things should continue.
  The sympathy of the whole House, I think, is with the Bill in regard to the adoption of children, and I would like to draw the attention of the House to one point. There is a vast amount of reference to other legislation in this Bill occupying practically the whole of Clauses 1 (2) and 2. I suppose that that is necessary, and probably the promoters have a legal turn of mind, but it constitutes a very grave objection to a Bill, and we have a right to protest. Perhaps it might stir up the mind of the Government to bring in some Measure to simplify the position in regard to compensation, so that we might not have a score of isolated Acts of this kind referring to I do not know how many other Acts, and making this complicated and very important question more difficult than it need be. If we could have one unifying Act, the whole matter would be placed upon a simple basis. It gives me great pleasure to be able to congratulate the hon. Members on their two useful Measures, which have been worked out and got through the House of Commons by Conservative Members, with that ability which distinguishes all Members of our party.
  12.29 p.m.
  Mr. HACKING: This Bill was originally introduced under the Ten-minute Rule, and at the time that speech was made, as the Bill was not before the House and had not been printed, the

  639
  Government could not express an opinion upon this Measure. I do not intend to delay the House for more than five minutes, but I think it only right that I should give the Government's view, and that I should say exactly what we are doing in suggesting that this Bill should be placed upon the Statute Book. Prior to 1st January, 1927, adoption was unknown in English law. On that date the Adoption of Children Act, 1926, came into operation. It was introduced, as in this case, by a private Member, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Galbraith). That Act made legal adoption possible. The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) has said that the next time a Socialist Government comes into office it will deal with workmen's compensation. [Interruption.] As an hon. Friend of mine remarks, they have said that before. It is a case of "Jam yesterday, jam tomorrow, but never jam to-day." They do not seem to take full advantage of their opportunities in this respect when they are in a position to do so. Under the provisions of the Act of 1926, as soon as an adoption order has been made, all the powers, rights, duties and liabilities as to the custody, maintenance and education of the child pass from the natural parent and are exercised by the adopting parent.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) asked whether children not legally adopted could be brought under the terms of the Bill. They cannot. If they were, they would be brought in at a very grave financial risk. One can see that there would be a very large number of adopted children at the appropriate moment when there was a question of receiving compensation. The general principle of legal adoption was accepted by Parliament in 1926, and the principle has been applied in particular instances since that date. For example, in 1929 the adopted child was brought within the provisions of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act, and in 1930 the general principle was applied to Scotland for the purpose of Workmen's Compensation. In Scotland ever since 1930 an adopted child has been treated for the purpose of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, as if it were the natural child of the adopting person.
  640
  This Bill seeks to do the same for England and Wales. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, the dependants of a workman who are entitled to claim compensation are such members of his family as were wholly or in part dependent upon his earnings. In that Act, the definition of the words "member of his family", although including illegitimate children, did not include an adopted child. The definition could not have included an adopted child because adoption was not legal in 1925. Recently the court of appeal has placed the matter beyond all doubt by deciding that the adopted child was not entitled in England and Wales to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The purpose of this Bill is to remedy that defect. Logically, there can be no reason why an adopted child in England should not be entitled to compensation in the same way as an adopted child in Scotland, nor is there any logical reason for depriving an adopted child of compensation rights while an adopted child is eligible for an orphan's pension. The Government, therefore, support this Bill and compliment the hon. Member for East Surrey upon remedying what he described in his speech under the Ten-minute Rule as another injustice to England.
  Mr. RHYS DAVIES: And Wales.
  Mr. HACKING: May I add Wales in order to satisfy the hon. Member for Westhoughton? The hon. Member for East Surrey is also to be congratulated upon completing the task to which he set his hand eight years ago. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department hopes that this Bill will have a smooth passage on to the Statute Book.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the Third time, and passed.

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (1925) AMENDMENT BILL.
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACT (1925) AMENDMENT BILL.

    CLAUSE 1.—(Insurance of owners of coal mines against liability to their workmen.)
    12.36 p.m.
    Mr. GODFREY NICHOLSON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out "in any week," and insert "at any time."

    641
    Before I deal with any Amendments, I should like, Sir Dennis, to ask your permission to say one or two words of explanation. I must apologise to hon. Members for bringing this Bill down to the Floor of the House for its Committee stage, but, as they know, it is inevitable if it is desired that the Bill should be passed into law. The Amendments fall into three groups. First of all there are a number of drafting and consequential Amendments, which will not need many words of explanation. Then there are two Amendments of principle, which are accounted for by the fact that in the original Bill I drafted the Long Title in terms that were too restricted, and, for the purpose of keeping the Bill in order and in accord with the Long Title, I had to move these Amendments in Committee. I will deal with them when we reach them. May I also say that I hope that the House will grant me this stage of the Bill to-day, and that I shall be willing to consider any alterations on Report or at a later stage in another place?
    The present Amendment is purely drafting. It does not alter materially the sense of the Bill, but makes it clear that the insurance required by Clause I will cover the employer in respect of the employment of the workman at the time in question.
    12.38 p.m.
    Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: I rise only to say that we on these benches desire to thank the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) for having brought the Bill on to the Floor of the House, because we see that there would have been a danger of losing it had it been left to be dealt with in any other way. We thank him for moving this Amendment, which is one that we are very anxious to have. From our point of view it is not merely a drafting Amendment, but will make the Bill more satisfactory.
    Amendment agreed to.
    12.39 p.m.
    Mr. G. MACDONALD: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out "for the purposes of that mine."
    In our experience of the Workmen's Compensation Act we sometimes find difficulty in getting compensation which
    642
    we believe ought to be granted to certain workmen, and we desire that the Undersecretary, if necessary, should clear up the point, or it may be that the Mover of the Bill can do so. We are very anxious that certain classes of workpeople, whom we think these words might exclude, should not be excluded. Take the case of collieries which have gone into liquidation. Those collieries may have had on compensation people of various grades, some of them surface workers and some of them underground workers; and we want to be sure that, if these words are included in the Bill, they will not exclude any of those classes of workpeople from the operation of the Measure. We think that if the words were left out the Bill would still be quite clear. A person employed by a coalowner is employed for colliery purposes, but we are not quite sure how far the words "for the purposes of that mine" would extend. We should like it made quite clear that any person who is now receiving compensation, or who ought to receive compensation, at a colliery which has gone into liquidation, will have the advantages of the operation of the Measure.
    12.41 p.m.
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: I do not think that there is any need for a long explanation on this point, but my hon. Friend will see that I am proposing to move an Amendment to Clause 4 which will define both "mine" and "owner" as having the meanings respectively assigned to them in the Coal Mines Act, 1911, and those meanings are very comprehensive. The reason for including these words in the Bill is obviously that a coalowner may also have another profession. The Bill is meant to be confined to people employed in connection with coalmines, but, if these words were taken out, the coalowner would be liable in respect of all the men he employed in any other business. We must try to confine the Bill to people employed for the purposes of a mine. If there is any way in which I can accommodate my hon. Friend's wishes on Report, I shall be glad to do so, but I do not think he will find it to be necessary.
    12.42 p.m.
    Mr. T. SMITH: I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member is well versed in law, but, personally, I am not quite

    643
    satisfied with his explanation. If this Amendment were carried, the Clause would read:
    "Subject to the provisions of this section, the owner of a coal mine shall not, at any time, employ any workmen unless there is in force between the owner and an authorised insurer a contract of insurance "—
    and so on. It seems to me that the words "for the purposes of that mine" would open the way to unnecessary litigation. Scores of instances can be found in the OFFICIAL REPORT where Ministers have given definite assurances that Workmen's Compensation Bills which were before the House meant so-and-so, and so they did until they got into Court, but, when the judicial mind was brought to bear upon them in Court, many far-reaching decisions were given which turned the Act almost completely topsy-turvy. Take the words "arising out of or in the course of his employment." Parliament knew clearly what those words were intended to mean, but the Courts gave a very different decision. It is true that later on the hon. Member proposes to define the words "mine" and "owner" in accordance with Section 22 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, and I admit that, if that very wide definition is worked fairly as it is understood in the mining industry, there need scarcely be any trouble at all on this point, but in my opinion these words are unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Member, whom I congratulate on his good luck in having been able to bring in his Bill, will, between now and Report, make it absolutely clear that these words are not going to have a detrimental effect when the Bill becomes law.
    12.44 p.m.
    Mr. NUNN: It seems to me that, if this Amendment is allowed to pass in Committee, it will have a very dangerous effect. As has been stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson), it would bring all the workmen employed by a colliery company or owner, whatever their duties might be, within the operation of the Measure. I know of collieries where coal delivery is part of the work of the colliery. At the present moment, until we have such a wide-spreading Measure as would reform the whole operation of workmen's compensation—which is obviously desirable—the only justification for this Bill is
    644
    that the work of the coal miner is particularly hazardous. Nobody can allege that the work of a man who is driving a lorry delivering coal is any more hazardous because that man is employed by a colliery than if he were employed by a grocer, a butcher, or any other person who employed lorry drivers. If, however, the words "for the purposes of that mine" were deleted, I think I am right in suggesting that a lorry driver would come under the operation of the Bill. I suggest that hon. Members opposite should leave the matter to be further considered by the promoter and gone into fully and, if there is any danger, it should be dealt with at a later stage.
    12.45 p.m.
    Mr. HACKING: I feel that it is not desirable to accept this Amendment, which goes beyond what its movers desire. If carried, the effect would be to make the owner of a coal mine insure against liability in respect of workmen employed by him, including in practice domestic servants, in any other business in which he might be interested. The intention of the Bill is, obviously, to apply to compulsory insurance in the coal mining industry alone. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Smith) said he was satisfied with the definition of a mine if it was interpreted as it should be in the Law Courts. The definition of a mine which is included in an Amendment to be moved later by the promoter is very sweeping, taken as it is from the Act of 1911.
    "The expression 'mine' includes every shaft in the course of being sunk, every level and inclined plane in the course of being driven and all the shafts and levels, planes, works, tramways, and sidings both below ground and above ground in and adjacent to and belonging to the mine."
    That would include all that is desired by hon. Members opposite. I hope that my hon. Friend will resist the Amendment.
    12.48 p.m.
    Mr. JOHN: It is not our intention to include the coal owners' domestic servants or anyone else, much as we should like to see a Bill which would provide for all the industries in the country. We desire that the real purpose of the Bill shall be achieved, that is, to safeguard the employés of any coal owner in the event of his going into liquidation or

    645
    bankruptcy. We are afraid that there may be certain interpretations placed upon the Bill which will remove the possibility of employés connected with the mining industry recovering compensation. For instance, employers or their agents or managers occasionally send some of the surplus workmen to work in their houses temporarily. Probably, if this wording were included, in the event of an accident occurring while these men were so temporarily employed, it could not be defined as being for the purposes of a mine, although the man was ordinarily engaged in the mining industry.
    Take the case mentioned by an hon. Member opposite about a workman engaged by a colliery company delivering coal. It could not be argued that his work is more dangerous than if he was employed by a grocer. But, still, he is employed by a colliery owner and, in the event of an accident, the owner would be responsible for compensation. Therefore, the analogy does not exist. The Bill says that, if a coalowner goes into bankruptcy, a man who drives a lorry delivering coal is not entitled to claim compensation. If it can be argued that a man who is employed by the coal owner in delivering coal is not employed for the purposes of the mine, these people will be denied the right of compensation in the event of an injury being sustained. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] If it is clearly understood that the right of compensation will be in accordance with the definition in the 1911 Act, I do not think we need press the Amendment.
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: I will give the matter my most careful consideration before Report, and will consult with the hon. Member.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: In page 1, line 13, leave out:
    "at any time during some period comprising that week"
    and insert:
    "in the course of some period current at that time."—[Mr. G. Nicholson.]
    12.51 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out from "week," to the end of the Sub-section.
    This proviso states that for a period of 26 weeks the employer himself shall meet
    646
    the compensation. I am troubled as to what will happen if an injured workman gets paid for two months by the employer and then something goes wrong and the next four months are not paid for. One wants to be clear that that is covered. I cannot understand why it cannot be made clear that a man shall be insured right from the commencement. It is a question about the premiums to be paid. That may influence the question whether the man is insured for the first 26 weeks. If a company insures through a mutual indemnity association, whatever premiums are paid, are paid to an association of employers, and whatever surplus there may be after meeting liabilities will go back to the members of that association which is a combination of the whole of the members. I really cannot understand why we cannot have it made clear that a workman shall be protected definitely right from the commencement of his injury. It seems to me that the Bill leaves a loophole. Unless certain events arise, a company is not bound to be insured. It means that in the period of 26 weeks all kinds of trouble may arise. There may be deferred payments, and then there is also the question of the legal definition of the words in the Bill and the question whether if the employer is solvent or insolvent it is the employer or the insurance company who should be sued. The whole thing seems to me to be likely to lead to trouble.
    I believe that the whole intention of the House is to protect the workman from the commencement. Once he has established his claim under the law, there should be no question at all about his getting payment at all times. This period of 26 weeks seems to me to be a weakness in the Bill. I have no intention of raising objections to the Bill. I am in hearty sympathy with its objects. All I desire is that it shall be made clear that there is no loophole to enable an employer to get out of his liability. There has been too much of that in the past, and employers have escaped paying what they ought to pay. That makes me very doubtful when I see these words in the Bill. My object in moving the deletion of these words is to get the whole matter cleared up, and if I am satisfied that there can be no evasion of responsibility, I shall withdraw the amendment.
    12.58 p.m.
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: I am convinced that my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) is mistaken in his fear that the Bill as drafted—and as, I hope, it will subsequently be amended—leaves any loophole. I suppose my conviction will not persuade him, but I may add that it is also the conviction of my legal friends who have helped me to draft the Bill and of the Government Offices whose advice I have sought. The reason for inserting the 26 weeks period in the Bill is that those 26 weeks are not covered by mutual indemnity associations, and frequently are not covered by insurance companies. That is because most injuries are healed within 26 weeks and mutual indemnity associations—that is, groups of collieries—want to be sure that each individual member has an inducement to get his injured workmen back to work. That is quite natural. I do not want to enlarge upon the point, but I may say that my object in drafting the Bill was to disturb existing arrangements, where they are satisfactory, as little as possible. It is the opinion of all those who have been engaged upon the preparation of this Bill that this period of 26 weeks may well be left in the Bill. I do not know if my hon. Friend has noticed the next Amendment which I have on the Paper. That, I think, makes the matter a little clearer, and I hope that he will be good enough to withdraw his Amendment.
    1 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I am not an expert in this matter, and I do not understand the technicalities put forward either by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker) or by my hon. Friend the promoter of the Bill, and I think if there is any doubt in the matter we ought to be told by the Government exactly how matters stand. May I, therefore, ask the right hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Home Office to say whether this Clause is really watertight, as we wish it to be. This is a very highly technical matter, and in view of what has been said by the hon. Member for Leigh, I think we have the right to ask for an assurance from the Government. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson) has been at vast pains to work this out, and I think it is a highly satisfactory piece of work that he has
    648
    done, if I may say so with great respect, but when there is a doubt I think that we should have some definite expression of opinion from the Home Office as to whether this Amendment may be withdrawn.
    1.1 p.m.
    Mr. HACKING: I agree with the view taken on this matter by the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. G. Nicholson). I cannot see that there is any such loophole as is feared by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). The Bill contains proposals designed to prevent a workman losing his compensation if an employer goes bankrupt. That is the great safeguard. He gets compensation notwithstanding that the first six months is not covered by insurance. Under the Bill, claims which are outstanding, or which become payable after an employer becomes bankrupt, have to be met by insurance. Where an employer becomes bankrupt during the period of 26 weeks, there is no doubt at all in my mind, or in the minds of those whose advice I have sought, that the man would get compensation.
    Mr. TINKER: After the statement made on behalf of the Home Secretary, although I am somewhat doubtful even yet, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    1.2 p.m.
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 18, to leave out from "of," to "after," in line 23, and to insert:
    "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."
    This is a further drafting Amendment designed to make it clear that the only risk—I emphasise the word "only"—which an employer may take upon himself is compensation for not more than 26 weeks from the time compensation first becomes payable by reason of accident or disease. The Bill already provides that if a coalowner becomes insolvent, the insurance company must pay all insurance claims after that insolvency, and this

    649
    Amendment is intended to make things even clearer.
    Amendment agreed to.
    1.3 p.m.
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 22, at the end, to insert:
    "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—

    (a) there was in force an instrument (hereinafter 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

    (b) all the owner's obligations for the time being under the compensation trust had been discharged.

    In this sub-section the expression 'week' means a period of seven consecutive days beginning on Sunday.
    (3) Every such compensation trust as aforesaid shall have full effect, notwithstanding any enactment or rule of law to the contrary."
    I fear that the Committee must be getting tired of my rising so often, but I feel that on this Amendment I must make a short explanation. This is one of the major changes in the Bill which we proposed to make in the Committee stage, and perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words in general explanation. There are three ways, as I explained on the Second Reading of the Bill, in which a coal owner is to be allowed to insure against, or to arrange for the discharge of, compensation claims. He may do it through an ordinary insurance company, through a mutual indemnity association, or through a compensation trust. As I have said before, I could not insert "compensation trust" in the original Bill. There are 16 colliery undertakings which at present have trusts, but, as the Under-Secretary has said, there are 257 who will probably come within mutual indemnity associations or trusts. These are rather important matters. The main features of the type of trust to be authorised are the existence of inde-pendant trustees, supervision by a qualified actuary and a qualified auditor, and intimation to the workmen that the provisions of the trust have been complied
    650
    with. When it comes to the Schedule, it will be seen that the essential feature is that there shall be in the possession of the trustees a capital sum sufficient to cover all liability for compensation payments that is accruing between the time of formation of the trust and the end of the current accounting year.
    Sub-section (3) of the Amendment is designed to ensure that trusts which conform with the requirements of the Bill shall be valid in law, and shall not be avoided by reason of any breach of the rule against perpetuities. This means, in effect, that the trust shall continue in being as long as any outstanding payments of compensation are due. The Committee know that in the ordinary course of events the duration of a trust is limited generally with reference to somebody's life—the last remaining issue of some royal personage, or something like that. I think that these trusts will be quite water-tight if properly administered. The main point is that there must always be this capital sum in the hands of the trustees. I do not think that there is much difficulty in envisaging the whole idea. When we come to the Schedule, it will be shown that I have taken the idea of the details of the Schedule from the model trust circulated by the Mining Association to their Members, and I hope that the House will allow these provisions to pass without further discussion.
    Amendment agreed to.
    1.8 p.m.
    Mr. NICHOLSON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, to leave out from "association," to the end of the paragraph, and to insert:
    "so, however, that a mutual indemnity association formed after the end of the year nineteen hundred and thirty-three, shall be 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 the accountant-general of the Supreme Court in pursuance of the following provisions of this Act."
    This Amendment introduces the other main feature which I wish to move into the Bill. As the Committee know, the major part of the insurance done in the mining industry against compensation claims is done through mutual indemnity

    651
    associations. Further in the Bill provisions are laid down whereby these mutual indemnity associations will have to make their Articles of Association conform to the Bill in various matters. This Amendment must be taken together with the proposed new Clause which is on the Paper to provide machinery whereby mutual indemnity associations formed after a certain date—I have recently altered the date to the end of last year—will have to make a deposit of £20,000 with the Accountant-General of the Supreme Court. As far as, the actual wording of the proposed new Clause and the Amendment are concerned, they have been drawn up in consultation with the Lord Chancellor's Department, and I think that it may be taken that they are sound as far as the principle is concerned. I cannot guarantee that any mutual indemnity association will be sound or solvent, but I maintain that by forcing new mutual indemnity associations to deposit £20,000, we are providing a certain safeguard against the formation of what I may call bogus mutual indemnity associations which might go far to evade the intentions behind the Bill. It could easily be imagined that two or three two-penny-halfpenny collieries, each employing ten men, might form a mutual indemnity association which would be quite incapable of carrying the charges which might fall upon it. I should like to add that I make no criticism of the financial stability of any existing mutual indemnity associations. The sum of £20,000 has been chosen because that is the sum laid down in the Assurance Companies Act, 1909, which every insurance company or underwriter has to deposit.
    1.12 p.m.
    Mr. TINKER: I take it that, in addition to the £20,000 which has to be put down by the new associations, the sanction of the Board of Trade will also be required to be given? It is not intended to say that the mere fact of putting down £20,000 is a guarantee that the association is all right?
    Mr. NICHOLSON: The Board of Trade's recognition is in no way a guarantee that the mutual indemnity association is sound. It has to be obtained before it
    652
    can even claim to be a mutual indemnity association.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2—(Information as to Insurance to be given to Workmen).
    Amendments made: In page 2, line 42, leave out "in any week," and insert "at any time."
    In line 43, after "insurance," insert "or compensation trust."
    In page 3, line 1, leave out "throughout that week," and insert "at that time."—[Mr. G. Nicholson.]
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 4, to leave out from "workmen," to the end of the Subsection, and to insert
    "(a) in the case of a contract of insurance, a certificate in the prescribed form, signed by the insurer, being a certificate which—

    (i) states that, to the extent required by the foregoing section, the owner of the coal mine is insured under the contract against his liability under the principal Act to workmen in respect of their employment for the purposes of that mine in the course of such period current at that time as may be specified in the certificate; and

    (ii) where the insurer is a mutual indemnity association, specifies the date on which the association was formed and, if it was formed after the end of the year nineteen hundred and thirty-three, states that the association has deposited the sum of twenty thousand pounds with the accountant-general of the Supreme Court in pursuance of this Act; or

    (b) in the case of a compensation trust—

    (i) a notice in the prescribed form, signed by the owner of the coal mine, stating that the trust conforms with the requirements of the Schedule to this Act and provides 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 the mine in the course of such period current at that time as may be specified in the notice; and

    (ii) where the workmen are employed at any time after the end of the first three months of any accounting year as defined in the Schedule to this Act, a declaration in the prescribed form signed by the owner stating that he has received the actuary's certificate required by the compensation trust in accordance with the Schedule to this Act to be given with

    653
    regard to the owner's liability for that accounting year, and either that no contribution to the trust fund is payable under the trust by virtue of the said certificate or that the contribution so payable in accordance with the requirements of the Schedule to this Act has been duly paid by the owner."

    This rather long Amendment particularises the notice which the coalowner must give to his workman, both in the case where he is covered by insurance and in the case where he has a compensation trust. The substance of Sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph (a) is already contained in the Bill. Sub-paragraph (ii) is in a sense consequential on the Amendment to Clause 1, page 2, line 31, which requires deposits to be made by new mutual indemnity associations. The new paragraph (b) (i) requires the owner to warrant that the trust conforms to the Schedule to the Bill, and that he has discharged his obligations for the time being under the trust. Sub-paragraph (ii) is designed to ensure that the workman shall know whether or not the assets of the fund are sufficient to cover the outstanding and contingent liabilities as certified by the actuary in accordance with the trust. It will be seen that the trust is to be in funds sufficient to cover the estimated liabilities of the current accounting year, that is, up to a year ahead.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 17, after "certificate," insert "notice or declaration."—[Mr. G. Nicholson.]
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, at the end, to add:
    "(3) In this section—

    (a) the expression 'colliery office' means, in relation to any coal mine, the premises at which the workmen employed at that mine, usually receive payment of their wages; and

    (b) the expression 'prescribed' means prescribed by the Secretary of State."

    This Amendment provides the necessary definition for the purposes of the Clause. I think the expression "colliery office" is a new definition in an Act of Parliament. It is intended to define the sort of place where the workman goes regularly, and where he will have an opportunity of seeing the requisite notices. We thought that the place where the workman usually receives payment of his
    654
    wages was the most suitable place for that purpose.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3—(Effect of certain contracts of insurance).
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 15, after "insured," to insert:
    "or on the ground that the answer to any question required to be answered by the insured in making any proposal for the contract is false or incomplete, and any admission or agreement whereby the said liability under the principal Act was established against the insured shall be binding on the insurer notwithstanding that it was made or entered into without his authority."
    The purpose of this Amendment is, firstly to cover the situation where an inaccurate answer has been given by the insured on some question which could not well be considered a material fact, but which is by the terms of the policy, made the basis of the contract of insurance; and, secondly, to prevent the insurer evading liability on the ground that the insured has admitted liability to a workman without the consent of the insurer.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: in page 4, line 18, leave out, "resist the claim on the ground aforesaid," and insert "repudiate liability."—[Mr. G. Nicholson.]
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, to leave out, "to the insured."
    These words are unnecessary and a little confusing, as the only payment which the insurer will have to make is a payment to the workmen to whom the right of the employer has been transferred under Section 7 of the principal Act. I do not think the House will wish me to go into Section 7 of the principal Act, but I will do so if they so desire.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 23, to leave out "falling, due to be made," and to insert:
    "outstanding at the time of, or becoming payable."
    This is another drafting Amendment. Under the Bill as it stands the insurer

    655
    would not be liable to indemnify the workman in respect of a payment of compensation outstanding at the time when the employer's rights pass to the workman under Section 7 of the principal Act. This Amendment makes the insurer liable in this case as well as in the case where the payment of the compensation falls due after the employer's rights against the insurer have passed to the workman.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, to leave out "or any dependant of the workman."
    There is no sinister purpose behind this Amendment. The words proposed to be omitted are unnecessary. Sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the principal Act says that any reference to a workman who has been injured shall, where the workman is dead, include a reference to his legal personal representative or to his dependants, etc., and this provision applies for the purposes of the Bill by virtue of Clause 4 (2).
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 30, to leave out from "Act" to the end of the Clause, and to add:
    "the insurer becomes under any liability to pay compensation which he would not have been under but for the provisions of the last foregoing sub-section, the capitalised value of that liability shall be deemed to be a debt due to the insurer from the insured, and the capitalised value of the liability shall—

    (a) if it is a liability to pay the whole or any part of a lump sum, he taken to be the amount of that lump sum or of that part thereof, as the case may be; or

    (b) if it is a liability to pay a weekly payment, be taken to be the amount of the lump sum for which the liability could, if redeemable, be redeemed under section thirteen of the principal Act."

    (6) There shall be included among the debts which—

    (a) under section thirty-three of the Bankruptcy Act, 1914, and section one hundred and eighteen of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act, 1913, are, in the distribution of the property or assets of a bankrupt, to be paid in priority to all other debts; and

    (b) under section two hundred and sixty-four of the Companies Act, 1929, are, in the winding up of a company, to be paid in priority to all other debts; and

    656

    (c) under section seventy-eight of the Companies Act, 1929, are, as respects a company registered in England in whose case either a receiver has been duly appointed on behalf of the holders of debentures of the company or possession of any property of the company has been duly taken by or on behalf of the holders of such debentures, to be paid in priority to any claim for principal or interest in respect of the debentures;

    the amount of any debt which, by virtue of the last foregoing sub-section, is due from the bankrupt or the company, as the case may be, to an insurer."

    This Amendment is purely drafting.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4—(Interpretation).
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 8, at the end, to insert:
    "Liability under the principal Act includes liability under a scheme made by the Secretary of State in pursuance of section forty-seven of the principal Act to pay compensation otherwise than by way of subscriptions to the-general compensation fund established under any provisions contained in the scheme by virtue of sub-section (3) of that section."
    This Amendment is to make it clear that there are included within the scope of the Bill compensation schemes set up under the principal Act by the Secretary of State in relation to industrial diseases, such as silicosis, or silicosis accompanied by tuberculosis.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 9, leave out "'Owner' has the same meaning as in," and insert:
    "'Mine' and 'owner' have the meanings respectively assigned to those expressions by section one hundred and twenty-two of."
    This Amendment is to bring into the Bill the comprehensive definitions of "mine" and "owner" which appear in Section 122 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911. They are marvellously comprehensive and cover every conceivable point.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 10, at the end, to insert:
    "Mutual indemnity association means an association of employers which has satisfied the Board of Trade that it is carrying on, or is about to carry on, business wholly or mainly for the purpose of the mutual insurance of its members against liability to

    657
    pay compensation or damages to workmen employed by them, either alone or in conjunction with insurance against any other risk incident to their trade or industry."
    This definition of "mutual indemnity association" has been brought down from Clause 1 where it originally stood for the purposes of convenience. The definition follows verbatim the corresponding definition contained in the Assurance Companies Act, 1909.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made:
    In page 5, line 14, leave out from "beginning" to the end of the Clause, and insert:
    "and any other expression has the same meaning as in the principal Act and shall be construed in accordance with such directions for the construction of that expression as may be contained in that Act."—[Mr. G. Nicholson.]
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 5—(Short title, citation, commencement and extent).
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: I beg to move, in page 5, line 20, to leave out "Act (1925) Amendment," and to insert "(Coal Mines)."
    This is an Amendment to change the Title of the Bill. The present title, Workmen's Compensation Act (1925) Amendment Bill is inaccurate because it does not really amend the Act of 1925, and it leaves out what, I think, is an important reference to the industry to which it applies. It has been decided, therefore, to call it the Workmen's Compensation (Coal Mines) Act, and I hope this will be agreeable to the Committee.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    NEW CLAUSE—(Deposits by mutual indemnity associations).
    (1) Any mutual indemnity association which carries on, or intends to carry on, business wholly or partly for the purpose of the mutual insurance of its members against liability under the principal Act to pay compensation in respect of the employment of workmen for the purposes of coal mines, may deposit the sum of twenty thousand pounds with the accountant-general of the Supreme Court for and on
    658
    account of the Supreme Court, and it shall be the duty of the accountant-general to receive the deposit accordingly.
    (2) Where a mutual indemnity association has made a deposit in pursuance of Sub-section (1) of this section, the association shall not be entitled to withdraw, or transfer to any other person, the whole or any part of the deposit unless it proves that it has ceased to carry on or, as the case may be, has abandoned the intention to carry on, business for the purpose of such insurance as is mentioned in the said Subsection.
    (3) The Secretary of State may make such rules as appear to him, after consultation with the Lord Chancellor, to be necessary with respect to the following matters, that is to say, the payment of deposits for the purpose of this section, and the investment thereof and dealing therewith, the deposit of stock or other securities in lieu of money, the payment of the interest or dividends from time to time accruing due on any securities in which deposits are for the time being invested, and the withdrawal and transfer of deposits.—[Mr. G. Nicholson.]
    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
    This Clause has been drafted in consultation with the Board of Trade and the Lord Chancellor's Department. It provides the necessary machinery to enable new mutual indemnity associations to become authorised insurers for the purposes of Clause I. I think that the Clause is on sound lines, and I hope the Committee will accept it.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW SCHEDULE:—(Requirements as to Form, Administration, and Provisions of Compensation Trusts).
    1. Every compensation trust must conform with the requirements of the following provisions of this Schedule.
    2. the trust shall be expressed in the form of a deed executed between the owner of the coal mine to which the trust relates (hereafter in this Schedule referred to as "the owner") on the one hand and two or more other persons on the other hand, of whom at least one is an independent person, that is to say, a person who is neither a servant nor an agent of the owner and who has no financial interest in the business of the owner.
    The last-mentioned persons and any person duly appointed in place of any of them are hereafter in this Schedule referred to as "the trustees."
    3. The trust shall provide for securing that if at any time the trustees for the time being do not include an independent person as hereinbefore defined it shall be the duty of the owner forthwith to appoint such an independent person to be one of the trustees.
    4. the trust shall provide for the creation of a trust fund (hereinafter in this Schedule referred to as "the fund") and for the vesting of the fund in the trustees, and shall declare that the trustees shall hold the assets of the fund on the following trust, that is to say, that whenever, by reason of any award or judgment against, or agreement or admission entered into or made by or on behalf of, the owner of the coal mine to which the trust relates, or his executors or assigns, any sum becomes payable by way of compensation in the discharge of any liability of the owner under the principal Act to a workman in respect of his employment, in the course of the relevant period, by the owner for the purposes of that coal mine, the trustees will, on behalf of the owner or his executors or assigns, as the case may be, pay the amount of that sum out of the fund to that workman.
    For the purposes of this Schedule the relevant period shall be taken to be such period as may be specified in the trust, being a period beginning on or after the day on which the first contribution to the fund required by the following provisions of this Schedule has been duly paid by the owner to the trustees, so, however, that the relevant period shall be deemed to be terminated by whichever of the following events occurs the sooner (that is to say):—

    (1) the death of the owner;

    (2) the owner becoming bankrupt or making a composition or arrangement with his creditors;

    (3) where the owner is a company—

    (a) the passing by the company of a resolution for voluntary winding-up within the meaning of section two hundred and twenty-five of the Companies Act, 1929;

    (b) the making of a winding-up order in respect of the company under the Companies Act, 1929;

    (c) the due appointment of a receiver by or on behalf of the holders of any debentures of the company secured by a floating charge, or the due taking possession, by or on behalf of those debenture holders, of any property comprised in, or subject to, the charge.

    5. The trust shall make provision for securing—

    (1) that, as soon as may be after the trust comes into force, the trustees shall cause to be given to them by a qualified actuary a certificate certifying the capital sum (including any such amount as the actuary considers to be a proper reserve to meet emergencies) necessary, in his opinion, to secure the payment of all sums which he calculates will, by virtue of the trust, fall to be paid out of the fund in discharge of the owner's compensation liability attributable to the first accounting
    660
    year (which capital sum is hereafter in this Schedule referred to as the "certified initial liability"); and

    (2) that, as soon as may be after the accounts of the fund for any accounting year have been submitted to audit, the trustees shall cause to be given to them by a qualified actuary a certificate certifying—

    (a) the capital sum (including such amount as the actuary considers to be a proper reserve to meet emergencies) necessary, in his opinion, to secure the payment of all sums which he calculates will, by virtue of the trust, fall to be paid out of the fund in discharge of—

    (i) any compensation liability of the owner which is outstanding at the end of that accounting year and which is attributable to the period between the beginning of the relevant period and the end of that accounting year; and

    (ii) the compensation liability of the owner attributable to the next succeeding accounting year; and

    (b) the difference (if any) between the said capital sum and the sum stated by the auditor, in accordance with the trust, to represent the value, as at the end of the accounting year to which the accounts relate, of the assets of the fund available for making payments by way of compensation in accordance with the trust (the amount, if any, by which it appears from the certificate that the sum so stated as aforesaid by the auditor falls short of the said capital sum, being hereafter in this schedule referred to as "the certified deficiency ")

    and the trust shall require the trustees to transmit every such certificate as aforesaid forthwith to the owner.
    Provided that nothing in the foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall apply in relation to any accounting year beginning at or after the end of the relevant period.
    6. The trust shall contain a provision whereby the owner covenants with the trustees that, forthwith upon receiving any certificate transmitted to him by the trustees in accordance with the provisions of the trust required by the last foregoing paragraph, he will pay to the trustees by way of contribution to the fund—

    (a) in the case of the first certificate so transmitted, a sum being not less than the certified initial liability; or

    (b) in the case of any subsequent certificate, a sum being not less than the certified deficiency, if any.

    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

    661
    of a claim tinder any such contract of insurance shall form part of the fund; and

    (2) for requiring the owner to furnish to the trustees all such returns, estimates, accounts, and other information as may be necessary for enabling them to perform their duties under the trust; and

    (3) for requiring the owner to defray, by means of contributions to the fund, the administrative expenses of the trustees (including sums paid or payable by them by way of premiums in connection with contracts of insurance effected by them in accordance with the trust); and

    (4) for requiring the trustees—

    (a) to keep proper accounts in relation to the fund; and

    (b) to cause the accounts of the fund for each accounting year to be audited as soon as may be after the end of that year by a qualified accountant; and

    (c) to obtain as soon as may be from the auditor by whom the accounts of the fund for any accounting year are audited a statement of the value, as at the end of that accounting year, of the assets of the fund available for making payments by way of compensation in accordance with the trust; and

    (5) For securing that the trustees are not empowered to invest any moneys of the fund in any securities other than securities in which a trustee may lawfully invest trust moneys by virtue of the powers conferred by section one of the Trustee Act, 1925, as extended by any subsequent enactment.

    8. for the purposes of this Schedule—

    (1) the expression "accounting year" means a period of twelve consecutive months beginning on the first day of the relevant period or on the anniversary of that day;

    (2) the expression "compensation liability" means liability under the principal Act to workmen in respect of their employment by the owner for the purposes of the coal mine to which the trust relates, and the owner's liability under the principal Act to workmen in respect of their employment as aforesaid in the course of any particular period shall be taken to be his compensation liability attributable to that period;

    (3) the expression "qualified accountant" means a person qualified to be appointed auditor of the accounts of a borough council which has adopted the system of professional audit;

    (4) the expression "qualified actuary" means a person being either a fellow of the Institute of Actuaries or a fellow of the Faculty of Actuaries in Scotland.—[Mr. G. Nicholson.]

    Brought up, and read the First time.
    Mr. G. NICHOLSON: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."
    662
    This is an important Schedule and contains a large number of what may be controversial points. The last thing I want to do is to waste the time of the Committee, and, therefore, I will content myself with formally moving, but I shall be willing and anxious to explain any particular point which any hon. Member may desire to raise. Alternatively, I am prepared to go through the Schedule in detail and explain it, but I would rather not.
    1.34 p.m.
    Mr. G. MACDONALD: It seems to be a formidable addition to the Bill, and it may be that hon. Members on this side may find it necessary between now and Report to put down some Amendments. I only desire to preserve that right.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Schedule read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    NEW SCHEDULE:—(Requirements as to Form, Administration, and Provisions of Compensation Trusts).

      TITLE.
      Mr. G. NICHOLSON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 2, to leave out from "against," to the end, and to add:
      "or otherwise ensure the discharge of, their liabilities under the "Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925; to enable certain mutual indemnity associations to make deposits with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court; and for purposes incidental to, and connected with, the matters aforesaid."
      This is to alter the long Title to the Bill. I was so anxious that the Bill should pass into law that I could not risk putting everything into it originally. I hope that with the Amendment the Title is sufficiently comprehensive.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday next, and to be printed. [Bill 102.]

  SUPPLY OF WATER IN BULK (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

  SUPPLY OF WATER IN BULK (No. 2) BILL [Lords].

    CLAUSE 1—(Supply of water in bulk).
    1.37 p.m.
    Mr. CHORLTON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 44, at the end, to insert:
    "for the purpose of this proviso the expressions 'railway company' and 'railway committee' shall include the London Passenger Transport Board."
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY OF HEALTH (Mr. Shakespeare): We have no objection to this Amendment, which is to give the London Passenger Transport Board the same protection as is enjoyed by the other railway companies.
    1.38 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Is there any particular reason why these words were not put in the Clause before? It seems to be rather curious that it should be left until the very last minute to insert this Amendment. Is the reason that the Bill was produced in some Department before the London Passenger Transport Bill was carried?
    Mr. CHORLTON: The reason is that the particular authority concerned was not aware at the time that the Bill might possibly touch its property. These words are inserted merely as a precaution.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: It is purely a precautionary measure, but it is rather unsatisfactory not to have the Amendment on the Paper.
    Amendment agreed to.
    1.39 p.m.
    Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 7, to leave out "a local Act", and to insert:
    "any Act of Parliament other than this Act or under any Order confirmed by Parliament."
    I move this Amendment on behalf of the Thames Conservancy Board. It is a manuscript Amendment because we did not realise that the Bill was coming on to-day. The proviso was inserted in another place at the instance of the Chairman of the Thames Conservancy Board, Lord Desborough. The words which we propose in the Amendment are to be found in Clause 3, page 3, lines 34, 35 and 36.
    1.41 p.m.
    Mr. REA: I do not wish to raise any objection to the Bill, but I am entitled to make a protest against the way in which these manuscript Amendments are being handed in at the last moment, on a Bill which we have agreed to allow to go through without discussion. It is taking an unfair advantage of the Committee and of the usual courtesies of a Friday that we should be asked to pass manuscript Amendments which we have
    664
    not had an opportunity of considering. I do not say it is the case with this Amendment, but other manuscript Amendments might have a bearing far more formidable than appears on the surface and yet we are asked to treat this as a non-controversial Bill.
    1.42 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I find myself in agreement with the hon. Member who has just spoken. This Bill comes from another place and there have been many opportunities of putting Amendments on the Paper. It is an abuse of Friday's procedure to take the Committee stage of a Bill of this kind, which is really very complicated, and to insert in it various manuscript Amendments which are of a technical character. I am not criticising the Bill or the Amendment, but I do join in the protest of the hon. Member. The Amendment refers to an Order confirmed by Parliament. That makes it very technical for the Clause as it stands refers to "a local Act." There was a Bill which passed its Second Reading yesterday. In that there was reference to Orders confirmed by Parliament. I am not sure whether some difficulty might not be caused. These words are sprung on us. When Amendments are thrust upon us in this way it is impossible to tell how the matter stands and I should not like to see the Government get into any difficulties in this matter. I respectively warn them that difficulties may arise as between these two Measures. When Committee proceedings are gone through in a hurried way and when we have no great legal light to help and guide us in these matters, accidents may happen and an awkward position may be created which the Government would have to put right later. I repeat that it is a little rough on the House of Commons that we should have these proposals brought before us in this way.
    1.47 p.m.
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: On the point of principle may I explain to the hon. Member that the Bill which received its Second Reading yesterday was a Bill of a temporary nature and any Order which is made under that Bill will last only for six months. This Bill, however, is of a permanent character and that is the distinction between the two Measures. On the point as to the privileges of Private

    665
    Members I am in complete agreement with the hon. Member. I would prefer if this Amendment were withdrawn and put down for the Report stage so as to enable the hon. Member and everybody else who wishes to do so to look into it. The essence of this Bill is that it should be non-controversial and the course which I suggest would enable the points mentioned by the hon. Member to be weighed and considered. I make that friendly suggestion to the mover of the Amendment.
    1.48 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: The hon. Gentleman says that this Bill is intended to be permanent and that the Measure passed yesterday is only temporary but I would like him to go into the question of whether regulations under this Bill may not be over-ruled by Orders under the other Bill or vice versa. I think it a wise suggestion that the Amendment should be withdrawn and taken on the Report stage and I congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on the fact that, speaking on behalf of the Government, he has stood up for the rights of Private Members instead of seeking to withdraw any of those rights.
    1.49 p.m.
    Mr. A. SOMERVILLE: I take it that there will be a Report stage as an Amendment has already been moved and accepted. In that case I thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for his suggestion and I am willing to adopt it. I appreciate the attitude of the hon. Members opposite who have spoken with regard to manuscript Amendments. I strongly object to them myself and I appreciate the benevolent, if somewhat interrogatory attitude of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). This is practically only a drafting Amendment and the words which it proposes to insert here, appear already elsewhere in the Bill. I am willing, however, to withdraw the Amendment now and to put it down on Report.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill".
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May we have an explanation of the Clause as it stands?
    1.50 p.m.
    Mr. CHORLTON: I shall be pleased to give an explanation although I thought the Bill was of such a simple nature that it did not require any explanation and that anything which I might say of that nature would be redundant. The Bill is for the one purpose of allowing a water authority which is in a position to do so to supply water in bulk to another authority in whose area there is a shortage and it provides the means whereby that can be done. In a particular case one company may have a good supply of water and it may be close to a district in which there is a severe shortage. At present such & company would have no power to supply water outside its statutory limits. The Bill would enable such a company to supply water in bulk, but only in bulk, to the other authority. The distribution would be by the undertakers taking the supply. Certain safeguards have been introduced so that the interests of all parties affected will be protected.
    1.52 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Clause 1 (4) contains a proviso with regard to undertakers opening or breaking-up streets. I wish to know how far that power extends. In certain parts of the country we have great trouble at present because different Departments such as the Post Office and the Ministry of Transport and others come along at various times to execute street works. Does this proviso mean that we are to have an unlimited breaking up of streets by these undertakers? I observe also that the Bill refers to railway companies but I do not think we have had any assurance yet that the railway companies are agreed on this point and I hold that great industrial institutions, such as the railways, should be consulted on these matters. We should be assured that there is nothing in the Measure overriding their powers.
    Then there is the question of principle as to whether it is advisable that a local authority which has too much water should be allowed to supply another authority which has too little. I personally am in favour of it but I would like to hear the Government's official opinion as to whether the methods proposed here are the right methods or not. I know of an instance in which one authority has a water difficulty while a neighbouring authority has plenty of water and

    667
    I wish to know whether it will be possible to co-ordinate water schemes in a case like that. Obviously the Ministry of Health is keenly interested in such a Bill as this if it is going to help in any way to deal with the water difficulty and we are entitled to know whether or not the Government are behind the Measure and are giving it their goodwill. Further, I should like to have the official Government view as to whether this will help to get cheaper water in this country.
    1.55 p.m.
    Mr. CHORLTON: With reference to the breaking-up of roads, if you are going to make a connection between one authority's mains and those of another, that will mean some sort of disturbance, but security is provided that there shall be the consent of the persons in control of the street or bridge. When the Bill was going through the other House, it was attempted to make it non-contentious, and I felt that these were only drafting Amendments and did not bring in any risks or infringe any rights. With regard to the second point, the railway companies have been consulted, and this is their own wording. With regard to the third point, I believe it will mean cheaper water being provided. Where you are going to pool your resources in this sense and give power to a company to distribute over a larger area, I think it will mean cheaper water.
    1.57 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: May I thank my hon. Friend most sincerely for the help that he has given to the Committee on this matter? I would now appeal to the Government to show us the same courtesy. This is a big Bill, which is giving very big powers throughout the country, and are we to be refused any advice on it by the Government? Are they giving up their position? Is there no Opposition which will take it on? I should like to know if the Government are really in sympathy with the Bill or what their attitude is.
    1.58 p.m.
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government strongly approve of the principle of this Bill. If there is one power that is now lacking, it is the provision of water outside one's own area. Some statutory undertakings
    668
    have got it in their own Acts, but not all, and this Bill promotes the cheaper supply of water, which can well be given if statutory effect is given to this simple provision, whereby statutory undertakings can supply outside their own area, subject always to the consent of the Minister of Health and to amicable agreements all round. The Government does bless the Bill.
    1.59 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I thank my hon. Friend for his explanation, because it is just as well that we should know that the Government are watching these matters. It is essential that the Government should be active and doing a great deal in this connection.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 2—(Procedure on application for the Minister's consent).
    Mr. CHORLTON: I beg to move, in line 20, at the end, to add:
    "(2) The provisions of section two hundred and ninety of the Local Government Act, 1933 (which relates to the holding of local inquiries in certain cases, including where the Minister is authorised by that Act to give a consent to any matter) shall have effect, before as well as after the coining into operation of that Act, as if the consent of the Minister to an agreement under this Act were a consent which he is authorised to give under that Act."
    These words were not inserted in another place in order to avoid questions of privilege.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 3—(Interpretation).
    The CHAIRMAN: The Question is, "That the Clause—"
    2 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Can we know what—
    The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member must really give the Chair a chance to put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    Mr. WILLIAMS: If I was a second before my time, I had no intention of interrupting the Chair, and I apologise

    669
    most sincerely. Here again this is a matter of interpretation. As far as paragraph (b) is concerned, how far does that go? I can Understand the words "any company…empowered by Act of Parliament," but what about "an order confirmed by Parliament?" Those are rather more difficult, and I would ask the promoter of the Bill or the Parliamentary Secretary to state whether these things go beyond any normal point and whether we can rest assured that there is nothing in the Clause which in any way makes the position of the Ministry of Health difficult under their own new Bill, which has only been issued for a day or two. I think we should be assured that there has been a most close consideration of this Clause by the Government.
    2.2 p.m.
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: I can assure my hon. Friend that there has been close consideration of this Bill for some time, and there is no discrepancy between it and the Government's Bill.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: My hon. Friend said "for some time," but I understand that the Government's Bill has only quite recently been worked out. Can he give me a definite assurance that the new Bill is in no way interfered with by this Bill?
    Mr. SHAKESPEARE: This Bill has been in front of Members for the last month, and we have been drawing up our Bill during all that time.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE A—(Short title and extent).
    Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    2.4 p.m.
    Mr. C. WILLIAMS: It is a very remarkable thing that this Bill, which is of great value, is not to apply to Scot-land. Is there a Member of the Scottish Office here to explain why not? They are having water difficulties in Scotland, and I should like to know why the Bill does not apply to that country as well as to England.
    Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Has my hon. Friend finished? I simply want to know if he has finished his question. If he has, I will reply to it, because I prefer not to waste time by answering two separate questions.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend on his new and original outlook. I asked him whether the Scottish Members are satisfied at Scotland being left out of the Bill. I will ask the hon. Gentleman who has been very courteous in the way he has conducted the Bill through the House whether he is assured by the Scottish authorities that they are satisfied at Scotland being left out.
    2.6 p.m.
    Mr. CHORLTON: I do not know that there is any fundamental reason why Scotland is left out. When the Bill was drafted the scarcity of water in Scotland had not arisen except in remote places where these advantages arising from the Bill would not arise. Further it was not considered necessary to bring in any consideration which might delay the passage of the Bill, and as the advantages that would arise from it would be in England, it was not considered necessary to include Scotland.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: I am glad the omission of Scotland seems satisfactory and I thank my hon. Friend for his courtesy.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday next, and to be printed. [Bill 103.]

  PROTECTION OF ANIMALS BILL.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  2.8 p.m.
  Sir ROBERT GOWER: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  In moving the Second Reading, it is unnecessary for me to speak at any length, because I am glad to believe that the principle of the Bill meets with the unanimous support of the whole House and I am convinced that it will conform to the almost unreserved conscience of the nation. The Bill is in effect a three-Clause Bill, and its sole intent—and I would emphasise this—is to prohibit a repetition of the three features of a rodeo exhibition to which general exception was taken when there was a rodeo in this country 10 years ago, that is, the lassoing, the wrestling and the riding of beasts exhibited as unmanageable. The general opinion of the House is well informed on this question. There can be no

  671
  doubt that incidents such as those which this Bill seeks to prohibit do and must unnecessarily impose a great deal of suffering upon the animals involved, and this House should take the earliest possible opportunity of passing legislation to prevent a repetition of what took place 10 years ago. Then the whole Press of the country was unanimous in condemning the incidents which took place then. Will the House permit me to read a description of a rodeo performance which was witnessed by Mr. H. W. Nevinson, the well known war correspondent. He wrote:
  "I have been an 'eye-witness' of a rodeo, and the part which had to do with bullocks was, to me, a cruel and disgusting spectacle. The game was for a cowboy to seize the bullock by the horns and twist its head and neck round till the agony compelled the creature to lie down, just as the pain compels a man or boy to lie down if you twist his arm long enough…. We should unite in protesting against this part of the cowboy performance."
  With regard, however, to the particular rodeo of Wembley held in 1924 the following is an extract from an article which appeared in the "Sporting Life," which is essentially a sporting paper and no accusation of crankiness can be made against the editor or those connected with it. It said:
  "In the lassoing and throwing of steer, and in the wrestling with them, the rodeo challenged criticism strongly; it was a direct challenge to the British idea of sport and of fair play for the dumb animals and the under dog…. It is not sport—which is what visitors to the rodeo were asked to believe. The lassoing and throwing of domestic animals more or less tame in a comparatively confined place like the Wembley Stadium, big though it is, is comparable with the coursing of rabbits in a field in which all the bolt-holes are stopped—the kind of 'sport' which is forbidden by law in this country."
  I am informed that more than 50 per cent. of the animals, particularly the steers which were used in connection with the rodeo in 1924, were injured. May I give the House a few instances? On the evening of 17th June one steer had its leg broken, two steers were found to be very lame, and one had its left horn broken. On 18th June one steer had its neck broken, two were very lame and eight were bleeding from the nostrils. On 19th June one had its neck broken after being thrown several times, one had the right horn broken, one had the left ear badly lacerated and two were very lame. On 16th June two steers had
  672
  their horns broken. On 17th June at the afternoon performance one steer had a horn broken, another had a horn loosened and was bleeding from the mouth and had a bleeding wound on the rump. At the evening performance one steer after being thrown had the left horn broken. On 20th June at the afternoon performance two steers were bleeding at the nose after wrestling and at the evening performance two others were in the same condition.
  It is significant in connection with these incidents that the public were not lacking in expressing their disapproval of what they were witnessing, and adverse reports appeared in most of the responsible papers of this country. The House may ask why it is necessary for this Bill to be presented to-day. A few weeks ago advertisements appeared in our national Press that another rodeo exhibition was to be held. The Society, of which I am chairman, at once wrote to the promoters of the proposed exhibition and asked for an assurance that no turns—if I may be permitted for using that term—similar to those to which I have referred should be permitted. In reply a letter was received from Mr. Lionel Bettinson, the managing director of the National Sporting Club, in which, while he emphatically disputed the contention that cruelty was necessarily involved, said:
  "No assurance therefore can be given of the character that you ask. It is too early yet for the detailed programmes to have in any way been worked out, but it is quite certain that a number of matters"
  and I lay emphasis on these words—
  "to which your letter relates will form part and parcel of the rodeo, indeed, they are inherent in its very inception."
  That letter was written on the 5th of last month. It has been represented to me that, in consequence of a communication which has been addressed by my right hon. Friend's Department after I had raised the question in the House, to the solicitors acting for the promoters, in all probability the idea of holding the proposed rodeo would be abandoned. In fact, it has been represented to me that no application has been made to the Ministry of Labour during the last week or so for a permit for any of the necessary performers—there are a large number of them—to come from abroad to this country. I have caused inquiries to be

  673
  made, and I can assure the House that the arrangements for the holding of this rodeo in June are being actively proceeded with, and personally I have no doubt at all that unless this Bill is put on to the Statute Book of the Realm the rodeo will be held.
  I have said that I believe that, in principle, this Bill has the unanimous and informed support of every hon. Member of this House, and it is therefore unnecessary for me to dilate at any great length upon the question, namely, whether or not cruelty is involved. There can be no doubt that it is. Another aspect of the matter has been represented to me. It has been suggested that the existing law is sufficient to punish any acts of cruelty which may take place in connection with an exhibition of this nature. It has been suggested, particularly in another place, that Section 1 of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, is sufficient. I would point out to the House that in 1924 the Society over which I have the honour to preside instituted before the Hendon magistrates a prosecution which arose out of certain admittedly most deplorable incidents which took place in connection with the rodeo of that year. I have been at pains to read through the shorthand note of the proceedings before the justices. There can be no doubt that it was proved up to the hilt, in fact, it was, in effect really not seriously denied by the defendants, that suffering has been caused to many animals, but the point was taken by the late Sir Edward Marshall Hall, then Mr. Marshall Hall, that no cruelty had taken place within the meaning of the Act.
  The point which was taken and emphasised was that within the meaning of this particular Section no case of cruelty had been established. Another point was pressed in that case, which was to the effect that if a prosecution was to be brought against anyone at all, it should not have been brought against those who were actually summoned, but against those responsible for the exhibition. The result was that by a majority of one—the voting was six to five—the summons was dismissed. I emphasise this point to-day because it has been represented to me in very strong terms that a Bill of this nature is not necessary as it is contended that the present law is sufficient to deal with any case of cruelty
  674
  which may arise. I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Beading to-day. It would be deplorable, not only in the interests of animals, but in the interest of human beings, if a disgusting exhibition similar to that which took place in the year 1924 were allowed to be shown again in this country. I would refer to the circumstance that in three of our great national newspapers leading articles have appeared emphasising that this Bill should be passed, and undoubtedly the public conscience has been aroused that it is proposed to hold again a rodeo in this country.
  I would say that it is definitely not the desire of the promoters of this Bill that it should operate in any way other than to prevent a repetition of the incidents which took place when the last rodeo was held in 1924. I understand that certain of my hon. Friends, although agreeing in principle with the Bill, although being anxious that the advertised rodeo should not take place, are rather apprehensive that the wording of the Bill may go a little beyond the objects of the memorandum of the Bill. Let me say this, that the sole intention of the Bill is to stop those incidents which involved cruelty at the last rodeo from taking place at the forthcoming one, if indeed it is permitted to be held. I would assure my hon. Friends who object to the wording of some of the Clauses in this Bill, because they consider that they go too far, that if they will allow a Second Reading of the Bill to-day there will, I am sure, be no difficulty at all in our arranging a form of words which will limit the operation of the Bill to the cases which I have already mentioned. I give that definite undertaking.
  It is not necessary for me, in moving the Second Reading, to say much more. I would, however, make this comment, that we who are responsible for this Bill regard it as being in the nature of an emergency Measure. We believe that the rodeo, if it is permitted, will be held in June or, at the latest, at the beginning of July of this year, and that instances of cruelty will occur. I am glad indeed to see my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary here this afternoon, and I would appeal to him as strongly as I can to support this Bill, and I would also appeal to the Government to do what I believe they will do, namely, give facilities

  675
  for the Bill to pass on to the Statute Book of the Realm at an early date. It is my intention, if the House gives a Second Reading to this Bill, to ask that it may be referred to a Committee of the Whole House, and be put down for Committee stage on Friday next. I have endeavoured in a very few words to state the case for this Bill, and I sincerely hope the House will give it a unanimous Second Reading, because there can be no doubt at all that every Member of this House would regret it, as also would the country, if the scandal of similar incidents to what took place in 1924 were again permitted here.
  2.25 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: I beg to second the Motion.
  The hon. Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower) has put the case so convincingly and lucidly that little is left to be said. I dissociate myself from any charge of supporting a crankish Bill. This is a Bill designed simply to retain clean sport for the British people. We want to prevent any unnecessary cruelty of the kind which we saw 10 years ago, and we want to prevent British taste in sport from being shocked again by cruelties such as we saw at Wembley in 1924. Many hon. Members witnessed that exhibition and saw those broken legs, broken backs, broken necks, bleeding nostrils, and bleeding eyes, and the frightened eyes looking out through the blood. That is not the sort of sport for British people.
  We can all admire a good horse race. I love seeing a horse race and the perfectly bred animals competing with the honest desire to win. Anyone who saw Brown Jack at Ascot has never been more thrilled; they saw a contest in which there was no fear on the part either of the jockey or the horse, or any antagonism even on the part of those who lost. I reinforce the plea made by my hon. Friend to those hon. Members who may have slight doubts. We undertake to devise a form of words, before the Committee stage, which will take place next Friday, to ensure that only the rodeo is affected by this Bill and no other form of sport will be antagonised or upset by it. [HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear"!] From the cheers, and the good will which is apparent in every part of the House, the case is already accepted,
  676
  and as the time is late I will not take up any more time. I ask for unanimous consent to the Second Reading of the Bill.
  2.28 p.m.
  Mr. GROVES: We do not desire to oppose the Bill, but I wish to draw attention to a provision which is contained in it. The Bill is designed to prevent the rodeo, but Clause I says:
  "No person shall promote, produce, exhibit, or take part in, any public contest, public performance, or public exhibition which consists of—

  (a) throwing, casting, roping, or catching, with ropes or other appliances, any animal; or

  (b) wrestling, fighting, or struggling with any animal; or

  (c) riding or attempting to ride any untamable or uncontrollable animal."

  My immediate duty is to call attention to—perhaps I may also use the word used by the promoter—a turn which has interested thousands of people in this country, that is, the boxing kangaroo. It is a perfectly simple and amusing turn, and involves no cruelty. The Bill, as introduced, will make this exhibition illegal. I feel that it is not the intention of the promoters to preclude any public exhibition in which an animal in no sense suffers cruelty, or contains anything which the ordinary Britisher would taboo. I call attention particularly to the words
  "riding or attempting to ride any untamable or uncontrollable animal."
  It is very difficult in this country to explain what we mean by an untamable or uncontrollable animal. Many of us have been to exhibitions at the Olympia or the Agricultural Hall, and have been interested and highly amused to see a young girl, after putting six lions or lionesses through their paces, ride one. I do not mean ride it round the ring, but she sat on it and did a form of ride. I do not believe that the promoters intend to preclude any such exhibition, and that the only intention is specifically to exclude the rodeo performance. The Bill contains words which have greater meaning and more far-reaching consequences, but the categorical assurances given have been very satisfactory. If it is understood and recorded that the intention of the promoters is in no way to extend the powers of the Bill but to limit them to the rodeo performance, we propose not to offer any objection.
  2.30 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: As one who has spent most of his life in training horses, breaking horses and generally dealing with horses, I want to add my word of protest against that abominable show which I witnessed and in which wild horses were supposed to be broken and ridden by a rough rider. Those horses were really perfectly tame and might have been ridden by anybody, but they had a certain part of their body which is unmentionable tied up with a rope. The agony caused them was so great that even before they were mounted two men had to hold them, an they were kicking, struggling and squealing, while the men got on their backs. Then, of course, the horses did their best to get rid of their riders, because of the terrible agony that they were suffering. I have seen that with my own eyes, and it is in order to protest against that terrible agony to horses that I have stood up. With regard to the boxing kangaroo; the Bill will not stop in that any way. There is no word about boxing in the Bill; the word is "fighting." Fighting is an illegal amusement, whereas boxing is legal. The word "fighting" means what it says, and is not like boxing, and therefore there will be no need to alter that part of the Bill.
  Mr. GROVES: Has not the hon. and gallant Member seen many boxing contests which are struggles?
  Lieut.-Colonel APPLIN: In struggling with an animal you must catch hold of it. The whole point of a boxing kangaroo is that you do not touch him except to hit him on the nose. That point can be dealt with in Committee. We have the assurances of the promoters of the Bill, of which I express my very warm approval and my hearty support.
  2.34. p.m.
  Colonel ROPNER: I support the principle of the Bill. Public opinion as to what constitutes an act of cruelty varies very largely between one country and another and between one generation and another, but I feel sure that it is the unanimous opinion of the House that, in this generation and in this country, such exhibitions as the rodeo should be stopped as soon as possible.
  2.35 p.m.
  Mr. DENVILLE: When one looks at the backing of the Bill, one cannot help seeing that it is backed by the more-sporting hon. Members. I came down to the House with the intention of opposing this Bill to the extreme limit, but, after hearing what has been said by the Mover and Seconder of the Bill, I am prepared, having had a vast experience in entertainment circles, to accept their assurance that the interests of the entertainment industry in this country will be safeguarded. One thing that strikes me as rather strange is that there should be any necessity for this Bill at all. My experience, which extends over many years, suggests that the Home Office have sufficient powers to deal with the whole of this matter without a Bill of any kind, and I find that, particularly in the Provinces, any act of cruelty that may occur is taken notice of more rapidly than in London. I think that the Home Office are able to prevent a bullfight in this country. The rodeo is a bullfight, and is just as repugnant, just as cruel, and just as degrading as any bullfight in Spain.
  I think it has been said in another place that there is at present no Act of Parliament to restrict or prevent the carrying out of such performances in this country, but the Act of 1911 makes it an offence to torture, infuriate, terrify or bait any animal, or to keep, use, manage, or assist in the management of any premises or place where such degrading exhibitions take place. Surely all sensible men must agree that that gives to the Home Office power to say what shall or shall not take place in London or its environs, and it would be quite possible to give the promoters of these rodeo performances to understand that their performance as originally given in this country will not be tolerated again—not even the abbreviated performance which took place afterwards, when the case was brought before certain magistrates and a division of opinion arose which resulted in the dismissal of the case. It is not commonly known that that case which was brought before the magistrates was nothing like the case that could have been brought had proceedings been taken much earlier. The promoters of the contest got wind of what was going to happen, and, when they were prosecuted, the exhibition was not half as cruel as, the original performance.

  679
  The entertainment industry, and the League which includes almost every industry in the entertainment world in this country, look upon these rodeo performances as degrading and they consider—and I do not think there is any showman in the country who would not say the same—that the police have power to stop these things. It the promoters of such performances knew that, if they came here, they would not be allowed to "get away with it", they would not come to this country. Again, there is the Ministry of Labour. Surely there would be no difficulty in action such as they took with regard to a certain circus being taken in connection with rodeo performances. I believe it has been suggested that some of these performances emanate from Canada, but I hope that no part of His Majesty's Dominions has such a blot on its national character as the country that sent such a degrading exhibition here 10 years ago. I welcome the Bill, and hope that it will be so amended as not to interfere with the liberty and the entertainment of the British public.
  2.40 p.m.
  Dr. O'DONOVAN: This Bill, which has been brought in for the prevention of unnecessary suffering to animals, has the interest of us all and the sympathy of us all, and I do not think that there is any Member in the House this afternoon who would obstruct the rapid passage of such a Bill into law. I detain the House for but a very few minutes to comment very shortly on a deficiency in the arguments that have been presented in favour of the Bill. We have been told at considerable length in pitiful words about the sufferings of animals, but I would suggest that one of the most compelling reasons for passing such a Bill into law is the need of maintaining the eminent and supreme dignity of man. The dignity of man is a greater consideration and merits even more attention than that due to the suffering of the lower animals. Another point worth considering is, that while we must tolerate suffering, and, indeed, at times must tolerate cruelty, we cannot tolerate suffering and we cannot tolerate cruelty for private gain. Surgical operations are lamentable occasions; they are very often cruel in act, and shocking even to those who take part in them; but, if it were suggested that surgical operations should be performed in public in order
  680
  that those who like to see painful and bloody scenes might satisfy their appetite for a price, it would be shocking, and public opinion would at once stop it.
  From the point of view of making profit and gain out of suffering, this Bill has everybody's sympathy and support. I do, however, wish to utter one gentle word of protest that what is not allowable in considering the suffering of human beings should be pressed in considering the sufferings of animals. Those who have had the experience of attending before coroners and courts of law to deal, for instance, with motor-car injuries, know that, in dealing with cases in which human beings have been killed, both judges and eminent lawyers stop the medical witnesses when they begin to relate the sufferings and injuries of the dead person. "Multiple injuries" is considered sufficient. The courts do not like their feelings to be harrowed, and justice pursues its course best when it is not clouded by feelings of sympathy which have been strained by tales of blood and suffering. I think that this Bill can stand on its merits. The dignity of man is outraged when profit is made out of the sufferings of our lowly dumb fellow creatures. Whether we need have our feelings hurt is a matter on which I would like the House to allow me to express a gentle protest. There are cruelties in industry; there are cruelties upon the roads; and yet, if I were to try in this House, during the discussion on another Bill, to spend time in dilating upon the sufferings of little children, there would be Members of the House who would think that there were many other matters connected with motor cars and traffic which were worthy of more prolonged attention. I am glad, however, that this Bill has been presented, and I am pleased to support it.
  2.44 p.m.
  Mr. HACKING: The object of this Bill, as explained in such clear and concise terms by the promoters and as set out clearly in the Memorandum attached to the Bill, is to prevent certain things from taking place which form part of the performance known as rodeo. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir R. Gower) has stated that there was very considerable feeling when the rodeo show was produced at the British Empire Exhibition in 1924, especially in regard

  681
  to the lassoing and throwing of a steer. The result was that, as he has told us, proceedings were taken at that time by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, but unfortunately, my hon. Friend said, the case then brought forward was dismissed by a majority of the magistrates. Only a short time ago, in March of this year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was asked in the House whether he would take steps to prevent the holding of the rodeo contest which it was proposed should take place at the White City from the 9th June to the 6th July this year. My hon. Friend was told that there was no power to prohibit such a performance. I take it that the Bill is brought forward in consequence of that reply and its object is to prevent the rodeo taking place by definitely declaring it to be illegal.
  May I say a few words on the existing law? Although there is no power to prohibit a rodeo at present, there is a remedy available to deal with any cruelty that may occur. Reference has been made already to the Protection of Animals Act, 1911 which makes it an offence to
  "torture, infuriate or terrify any animal"—
  and moreover it is an offence to—
  "cause, procure or assist at the fighting or baiting of any animal or to keep, use, manage, or act or assist in the management of any premises or place for the purpose of or partly for the purpose of fighting or baiting any animal or to permit any premises or place to be so kept, managed or used."
  It has been suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle Central (Mr. Denville) that those powers might be sufficient, but before any action could be taken with regard to cruelty in respect of this Act that cruelty would have had to have taken place, and I take it that the object of the promotors is definitely to prevent cruelty taking place—to give no apportunity for the cruelty to occur.
  Mr. DENVILLE: I instanced a bull fight and said there is power to prohibit bull-fighting in any shape or form.
  Mr. HACKING: Even if that is so, I doubt very much whether that Act would cover such a performance as a rodeo. There is, at any rate, considerable doubt.
  Since the last rodeo show took place there has been passed the Performing Animals (Regulation) Act, 1925, for the
  682
  purpose of restricting the exhibition and training of performing animals. It is, however, still a question for legal decision whether this Act would in fact apply to a rodeo show.
  Sir R. GOWER: We are advised that it would not.
  Mr. HACKING: I said it was a question for legal decision, and because there is that doubt I do not desire to say anything more in connection with that Act. I only want the House to realise that the Act is on the Statute Book.
  Now may I turn to the necessity for this Bill. As previously indicated, in the event of any cruelty having taken place the existing law provides a remedy. Furthermore, it is understood that the majority of the cowboys taking part in the rodeo performance will be aliens. My right hon. Friend has in this connection made two statements to the House. He has made two things clear: Firstly, that it would not be a proper exercise of his statutory powers under the Aliens Order to exclude persons from this country merely because the object of their visit is to take part in a rodeo, and secondly—I desire to stress this on his behalf—under his existing powers he would be free to require the promoters of any rodeo show to remove the aliens either wholly or individually from this country if any sufficient reason should arise through the presence of alien participants in the rodeo. Moreover my right hon. Friend has made it clear to the House in very strong terms that he would not hesitate to take action in this respect if in his opinion it should become necessary. I only mention these powers so that the House shall know that there are existing powers which could in some measure deal with a rodeo performance. They should not be disregarded. I put it no higher than that.
  It only remains to state the Government's intentions towards this Measure. It has a very representative backing. The Government, in accordance with their usual practice, do not intend to oppose the principle of the Bill. They will leave it to a free vote of the House to decide whether or not it should receive a Second Reading. I must, however, warn the House that, should it receive a Second Reading, its drafting will have to be very carefully considered. For

  683
  instance, it provides in its present form that no person is to ride or attempt to ride any untameable or uncontrollable animal. If a horse at a circus took fright and became uncontrollable, I know what some of the consequences might be, but I am not sure what the consequences under the Bill might be. The promoters have given an assurance that the Measure will be strictly confined to proceedings at a rodeo. It is clearly not intended that a rider in such a case as I have mentioned should be liable to the full penalties of the Bill—a fine of £100 or imprisonment with hard labour for three months. But he might be so liable under the terms of the Bill as drafted. That is the type of thing we have to put right in Committee. The Government, then, have no objection to the Bill going before a Committee of the Whole House and gettings its further stages as soon as practicable, consistent
  684
  with full consideration being given to details. They will certainly not oppose the Second Reading, and my right hon. Friend will give sympathetic consideration and attention to its further progress.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Friday next.—[Sir E. Gower.]
  The remaining Order was read, and postponed.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 2.
  Adjourned at Six Minutes before Three o'Clock until Monday next, 16th April.

  UNEMPLOYMENT.
  UNEMPLOYMENT.
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (CINEMA CONGRESS).
  LEAGUE OF NATIONS (CINEMA CONGRESS).