HC Deb 01 June 1897 vol 50 cc66-70 (3.) "Where any person in the execution of any work within the scope of his trade or business and for the purpose of executing such work is in occupation of or has control over the place or premises in or upon which such work is to be done, he shall be liable to any workman engaged in the execution of the work therein or thereupon for the amount of any claim which such workman may have under this Act, or in respect of personal negligence or wilful act independently of this Act, against any sub-contractor. Provided that any person liable under this section shall he entitled to indemnity against any other person who would have been liable independently of this section."

This question of sub-contracting, he said, was one of great importance and, perhaps, of more interest to the working classes than any other point in the Bill. By the rules of jurisprudence in this country no man could sue upon a contract who had not been what was called party to that contract. Therefore, if a workman was not in the employment of a master he could not sue the master for injury in his employment, and that would be the rule under this Bill were it not for some such clause as the one he had proposed. This rule had worked out in practice so as to inflict very grievous hardship upon many workpeople who had been injured. He would take two illustrations for the purpose, first, of showing what the clause aimed at doing; and, secondly, for the purpose of showing what class of parties it aimed at bringing within its limits. Take, for instance, the case of a man who had got a mine and who wished to get a certain amount of coal out of it. Headings were driven and a shaft was sunk. It was not convenient for him to find the miners, and so he went to the people who were in some parts of England known as "buttymen." These "buttymen" said they would get the coal the owner wanted, that they would find the miners and would be responsible to them. The "buttyman" employed the miners under the conditions that the whole work was being done under the control of the mine owner, that it was directed by his mine manager, that every bit of it was supervised by the agent of the owner, and that the miners were employed by the "buttyman," although they were only technically employed by him and were really under the control and direction, and subject to the orders of the mine owner or his managers. Under those conditions it was a mere technicality to say that the men were not employed by the mine owner. They were employed by him—that was to say they were controlled and directed by him, and they got their wages out of what belonged to him. Under these circumstances it had always been a great grievance on the part of the workpeople that they had not been able to recover against the mine owner compensation for their injuries, because they found that the sub-contractor was a person of no substance, and so they were left without a remedy for the wrong they had suffered. In that case there had been a growing demand for an alteration of the law, such as was proposed in that clause, which, notwithstanding the technicality that the mine owner had not directly employed them, should make him liable. The clause, therefore, proposed to make liable the mine owner or other employer who was getting work carried out which was within the scope of his trade or business by other people. Then it proposed that if this sub-contractor caused injuries to the workmen the mine owner or employer should have a remedy over against the sub-contractor for what he, the head employer, had had to pay. That seemed just and fair, and it would tend to make the head employer of labour careful as to the kind of sub-contractor he employed, and to see that he was such a man as was likely to do fairly by his workpeople. There were a large number of cases which the clause carefully excluded. Take the case of a man who was in the occupation of land—say a colliery—and who wished some building put up on it, say a colliery shed. Instead of building it himself he went to a builder and employed him to put it up. This could not be said to be "within the scope of his trade or business," and, if an accident happened, this was not a case that would come within the clause. He thought, as drawn, the clause would meet a great grievance which had been felt all over the industrial parts of the country for a long time, and as to which he thought the time had arrived when they should seek an alteration without looking too closely as to whether they were departing from a mere technical rule of law.

MR. C. A. CRIPPS (Gloucester, Stroud)

said that with a great many of the propositions stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite he found no exception at all. This clause undoubtedly was a very important one, and he was not quite sure whether the limitations the hon. and learned Gentleman had suggested were really sufficient. There were one or two points to which he should like to direct his attention and that of the Attorney General so far as sub-contracting was concerned. Suppose the work of the sub-contractor was in connection with the general scope of the work of the head employer. From that point of view, he thought the workman should have a remedy in a case of that kind, but he thought it was extremely important that it should be strictly limited. Suppose an employer brought a sub-contractor on to his premises, say a factory, for the purpose possibly of repairing the premises, and that in the course of the work the workman suffered from some injury. He did not understand the hon. and learned Gentleman would suggest that in such a case the factory owner should be liable.

MR. HALDANE

pointed out that the words of the clause were "within the scope of his trade or business."

MR. CRIPPS

said that, if it were limited in that way, for his part he thought it was a proper Amendment, and ought to be introduced, but that any extension of it beyond that limitation ought, on the other hand, to be rigorously excluded. There was another point on this clause which he could not pass by, although he thought it had to do with the general scope of the Bill. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman had made certain Amendments in the words of the Amendment so that it should only apply to the "personal negligence "or" wilful act "of the employer. He wanted to protest against these words being introduced. If the first clause was not to be altered on Report, of course the words would have to stand, but he had always protested against the introduction of these words into the first clause.

MR. HALDANE

I have protested as stoutly as my hon. and learned Friend, and I quite agree with him.

MR. CRIPPS

said he only wished to safeguard himself as regarded the introduction of the words in this Amendment. He thought they ought not to be introduced, and of course they must be subject to the general form which the Bill took on the Report stage.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stroud, and if on Report the first clause should be altered it would be absolutely necessary to alter the present Amendment in the same sense, but as long as the decision of the Committee stood they must adopt here the words "personal negligence" and "wilful act." He would be responsible, so far as he could, for making the Bill consistent when they got its ultimate shape finally agreed upon. He came now to his criticism of this Amendment. He agreed with his hon. Friend time Member for Stroud that it was necessary to have some limit; and he thought that limit was supplied by the words of the Clause "within the scope of his trade or business." There was originally no sub-contracting clause in the Employers' Liability Bill of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife, and after a long discussion in the Grand Committee, words substantially the same as the Clause now before the Committee were added to that Bill. When the Government came to consider this most difficult question they came to the conclusion that they should not go far wrong in adopting something similar to the subcontracting clause of the Bill of 1893. They accordingly accepted the new clause of the hon. Member for Haddingtonshire.

Clause Read a Second time.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

moved to add at the end of the clause the words:— All questions arising under this section shall be settled by arbitration in the manner provided by this Act. The Government considered that one of the great advantages of the Bill was that it would kill litigation. The lawyers in the House had accepted that principle. [Laughter.] They had, so to speak, their own death-warrant, and had thus shown their disinterestedness and self-denial in the matter. [Laughter.]

MR. HALDANE

thought the Amendment was an improvement to the clause, which would go far to prevent litigation, and, like Quintus Curtius, he would leap into the gulf with the Attorney General. [Laughter.]

Amendment agreed to; Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SIR R. REID moved the following new clause:—