I fear I shall not do much better than the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Sexton), but there are some points in connection with this Bill to which I wish to direct attention. The Bill is in two parts. The first part alters the qualification of the Chief Registrar, and as it is the first time I have heard of the proposal, I do not look upon it as an agreed matter, but I am not going to say anything about it at the moment. Between now and the Committee stage, however, I intend to make inquiries as to that point. The present qualification is that the person holding the office must be a barrister of 12 years' standing. The Bill abolishes that qualification and throws the appointment open to others who may be, no doubt, qualified for the work, but I will not deal with that matter just now. As regards the second part of the Bill, undoubtedly it is an agreed Measure—or rather the intention is one on which there has been agreement. The original Friendly Societies Act gave power to insure children under 10 years up to a sum of £10. That right was applied to the industrial assurance companies by the Act of 1896 and the result was that the industrial assurance companies or friendly societies could not insure a child for move than £10.

That provision continued in force until 1923, when a Measure, dealing only with industrial assurance companies, came before the House and an Amendment was accepted late in the evening extending the insurance of children up to a sum of £15. That did not touch the friendly societies and, undoubtedly, it was then agreed that a Bill should be brought forward to put the friendly societies on the same footing as the industrial assurance companies and that was all that was intended. This Bill, however, is a most extraordinary example of bad drafting. Every Parliamentary draftsman loves to legislate by reference. I have appealed against it time after time, though I suppose it is almost useless to do so. This Bill will have to be understood by laymen and used every day by laymen in all parts of the country, just as the Act of 1923, which was a consolidating Act, is being used every day and has to be understood by every person using it. Section 4, Sub-section (1) of that Act makes perfectly plain what an industrial assurance company can do, namely, insure, a child up to £15. This Bill now comes along and repeals that provision of the Act of 1923. The Act of 1923 had in turn repealed the Act of 1896, but the Act of 1896 was the only thing which applied the Friendly Societies Act to the industrial assurance companies. Section 4, Sub-section (1) of the Act of 1923 set out quite, fully what was to be done, and it said: The provisions of Sections sixty-two and sixty-four to sixty-seven of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, relating to payments on the death of children, shall extend to industrial assurance companies. I do not think much of the drafting of that provision itself and I said so at the time, but still it was something which a layman could understand, even though with some difficulty. Now this Bill comes along and repeals it. Therefore, you have this position, that there is nothing which applies the Friendly Societies Act to the industrial assurance companies at all, and the only way in which you try to do it is by Clause 2 of this Bill which says: Section sixty-two of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896 (which relates to assurances on children), both as originally enacted and as applied to trade unions and industrial assurance companies, shall have effect as if for that Section the following Section were substituted. But it is no longer applied to the industrial assurance companies, because the Act of 1923 had repealed the Act of 1896, and by this Bill you are repealing the Section which affected them in 1923. I resent this, because as lately as 1923 you had a code which everybody could use. I hope I have made my point clear. It is that the original Friendly Societies Act said that you shall not insure for more than £10; the Act of 1896 applied that Act to industrial companies; the Act of 1923 repealed the 1896 Act; and, having repealed it, substituted Section 4, Subsection (1) of that Act. This Bill, admittedly intended to put both people on the same footing, repeals that Section 4, Sub-section (1), and under Clause 2 refers to Section 62 of the Act of 1896 as applied to industrial insurance companies. As I said before, the Act of 1896, which was the Act which applied to insurance companies, was repealed in 1923, and, therefore, the obvious intention of my hon. Friend and myself has not been effected by this Bill.

I think I am right, but, even if I am not, I hope the hon. Gentleman will redraft the Bill in such a way as not to revoke the code drawn up in 1923, because of the extreme inconvenience caused to ordinary people when they find that the Section on which they have been working is repealed, and have then the trouble of looking up some other Act, in a library or elsewhere. There is nothing more important, in drafting Acts of Parliament, than to make them easy for the practitioner and easy for the layman to use. More harm is done by mistakes in such points as these than is perhaps credited, and I ask an assurance from the Government that not only will they see that the intention is properly carried out, but that the form of the Bill shall be altered, and that we shall be able to keep the Act of 1923, as it is now, the code which is being used throughout the length and breadth of the land. The difficulties which have arisen under it are rather large, but, whatever they are, it is being used by everybody.