§ Where an employer who is the owner or occupier of any premises has engaged or contracted with any other person to execute any work, act, or thing in, upon, or about such premises not within the scope of the trade or business of such employer, and such other person employs or directs and controls the workmen engaged in such work, act, or thing. then, in the event of any of such workmen being injured whilst so engaged, such other person shall be deemed to be the employer of such workmen for the purposes of this Act, and not the owner or occupier of the premises.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL moved to leave out Clause 3. He said the clause was not only unnecessary, but dangerous. The probable liability was covered by the contract of employment and by the sub-contractor's clause of the Bill, and if the words of the clause were inserted, it might limit the right of the workman against the individual employer which he was entitled to have as well as the right of remedy against the chief employer. It therefore hampered the Bill.
§ MR. TOMLINSONsaid the clause interfered with the object of the Bill.
§ MR. C. A. CRIPPS (Gloucester, Stroud)said he desired to support what the Attorney General had sail. He thought the clause was desirable for the protection of the employer, but as the principle of making the employer liable for the Act of any stranger had been adopted, the clause was quite unnecessary, and would complicate the Bill.
§ Motion agreed to; clause struck out.
§ Clause 4,—