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."

What about the protection of private persons endangered by such an act?

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 "—

I beg to second the Amendment.

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."

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.

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.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he would mind reading the Amendment, which says:

"under the supervision of his parent or guardian"—

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 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.

Oh, no.

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.

I desire to intervene immediately, because it is clear from all the 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?

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."

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.

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.

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.

I appreciate that distinction.

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 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."

indicated assent.

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.

That is so.

I am glad that I have correctly interpreted the wishes of my hon. and gallant Friend.

We have no objection to the small-bore rifle.

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."

"provisions of this Act other than"

"those of subsection (1A) of section three or."

"The expression 'firearm' means any lethal firearm or other weapon of any description from which any shot, bullet or other missile can be discharged…."

"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."

"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."

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."

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 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."

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.

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."

"using or carrying a firearm or ammunition for sporting purposes under the supervision of his parent."

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.

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?

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."

"A person under the age of 14 shall not have in his possession, use or carry, firearms or ammunition,"

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.

I do not know whether the next Amendment is necessary or not.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out "smooth bore gun shot or".

I beg to second the Amendment.

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). 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Am I not right in saying—

The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.

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.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

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 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.

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?

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.

He can, so far as this Bill is concerned. You have not prevented that boy by this Bill from purchasing a similar weapon again.

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.

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.

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 their parents and guardians, will command the immediately sympathy of the House.

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.

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,"

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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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."

I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out "in any week," and insert "at any time."

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.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, to leave out "for the purposes of that mine."

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.

I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member is well versed in law, but, personally, I am not quite 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 "—

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 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.

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."

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 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.

I will give the matter my most careful consideration before Report, and will consult with the hon. Member.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out from "week," to the end of the Sub-section.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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."

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 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."

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?

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 can even claim to be a mutual indemnity association.

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 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."

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."

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."

I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, to leave out, "to the insured."

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."

I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, to leave out "or any dependant of the workman."

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

(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."

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."

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."

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 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."

I beg to move, in page 5, line 20, to leave out "Act (1925) Amendment," and to insert "(Coal Mines)."

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."

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.

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."

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.

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?

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.

It is purely a precautionary measure, but it is rather unsatisfactory not to have the Amendment on the Paper.

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 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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

May we have an explanation of the Clause as it stands?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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."

The Question is, "That the Clause—"

Can we know what—

The hon. Member must really give the Chair a chance to put the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

If I was a second before my time, I had no intention of interrupting the Chair, and I apologise 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.

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.

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?

This Bill has been in front of Members for the last month, and we have been drawing up our Bill during all that time.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I am glad the omission of Scotland seems satisfactory and I thank my hon. Friend for his courtesy.