HC Deb 24 November 1911 vol 31 cc2112-5

For the calendar year or any part thereof, 15s.

Mr. BARNES

The next Amendment standing in my name is to leave out the word "½d." From every workman employed, 2½d. This raises the whole question of the State contribution. It raises also the question of the contribution of the employer and the workman. It proposes to reduce the whole sum, and proposes that the State should make up the amount of the deficiency. I should like to know whether my Amendment can be moved at all, because, if carried, it would mean a new financial resolution?

The CHAIRMAN

I think the matter has been already decided by the Clauses of the Bill as it stands.

Mr. BARNES

I gather, then, from your ruling that the Amendment is out of order?

The CHAIRMAN

It is out of order, of course, to discuss the proportion of the State contribution, and the total contribution of the employer and the workman. Supposing the hon. Member's Amendment was carried, the State contribution would be proportionately altered.

Mr. BARNES

Then I will not move.

Mr. BUXTON

I beg to move, at the end of paragraph (2) ["for every week he is so employed … 2½d.] to insert the words—Provided that in the case of a workman below the age of eighteen 1d. shall be substituted for 2½d. as the contribution from the workman and from the employer, but for the purpose of reckoning the number of contributions in respect of such a workman the 1d. shall be treated as two-fifths of a contribution.

Mr. T. E. HARVEY

Are we to raise the whole question of the contribution of young persons on this Amendment? I want to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can give an assurance that when other trades are included, he will consider the advisability of making a similar alteration. Will he also consider whether it will be necessary to add words to Clause 76 in reference to the particular case of persons under the age of 18? It is now allowed under Clause 76 to alter the rates as between employer and workman. It may be desirable in certain trades to have a contribution from one only and it may be desirable that the Board of Trade should be free after due inquiry to ask for contributions from employers Only. I ask the President of the Board of Trade to give an assurance that he will consider favourably an Amendment of that kind.

Mr. PETO

I do not quite understand the meaning of these words. If it means 1d. is two-fifths of 2½d., that should be put into an amending Clause. If it means that 12½ contributions at 1d. for every week of benefit taken out by young persons it seems to be eminently unfair because the contribution already represents 1d., and the benefit is to be nothing until the young person arrives at the age of 17, Is this a pious expression of opinion that 1d. is two-fifths of 2½d. Does it mean the young person shall only draw out one week's benefit, 3s. 6d., for every 12½ weeks of contributions.

Mr. BUXTON

With regard to what was said by my hon. Friend (Mr. Harvey) we have already agreed to look into the matter between now and the Report stage, and perhaps he would allow the matter to stand over. With regard to the question raised by the hon. Member (Mr. Peto) he has hit a blot on the Bill. I see his point and I will consider it.

Mr. PETO

The whole point will be met if you will leave out everything after "employer."

Mr. BUXTON

No; but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to look into the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. BARNES

I wish now to make an appeal to the President. We have an Amendment which proposes to leave out the word "less" ["of employment of less than a week "] and to insert instead thereof the word "more."

This raises the whole question of casual labour. It would give men employed in these branches of insured trade where employment is irregular the chance of getting the benefits of the Bill. But inasmuch as the President of the Board of Trade has an Amendment lower down meeting the whole thing—I have only seen it this afternoon—I suggest that the Committee might adjourn now and finish to-morrow.

Mr. BUXTON

I hope the hon. Member will not press that. My Amendment has been down for some time, and its object is to meet the very point which the hon. Member has raised. That is to say it will be 1d. if the period does not exceed one day, and 2d. if it exceeds two days. I think that meets this point.

Mr. BARNES

In that case I will not move the Amendment referred to.

Mr. GOLDMAN

I beg to move after the word "than" ["employment of less than a week"] to insert the word "half." The paragraph would then read, "Every such period of employment of less than half a week shall for the purposes of this part of the Schedule be treated as if it were employment for a whole week."

As the matter now stands each period less than a week shall be deemed to mean employment for a week. In other words, although a man may be unemployed seeing that he has paid his contribution, be it only for a day in respect to a week, he cannot get any unemployment benefit. He has to be a week employed before he can get any unemployment benefit, and my Amendment would enable him to get unemployment benefit after three days. As the Schedule stands now he is deemed to be employed for a week having paid his contribution, but he may be unemployed after the first day, and why not then give him unemployment benefit.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member must move to leave out the word "a" and the Amendment therefore is to leave out the word "a" in order to insert the word "half."

Mr. DENMAN

The point is that by this paragraph here any period less than a week for all purposes in the Bill is to be deemed a week. If the hon. Gentleman will look further at the paragraph he will see it is only for the purposes of this part of this Schedule. If the Amendment of the President of the Board of Trade is passed shorter periods will be added together merely for the purpose of reckoning the number of contributions and would have no relation to the benefits.

Mr. HOLT

I hope the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goldman) will not move any more manuscript Amendments. He has moved many, and it is impossible almost to know what they are about.

Mr. GOLDMAN

I am very sorry to hear this rebuke from the hon. Gentleman, especially seeing that the Government themselves have proposed many manuscript Amendments. In these circumstances, I do not think the hon. Gentleman is justified in administering this rebuke to me.

Mr. BUXTON

I think the explanation of my hon. Friend Mr. Denman is quite clear. This only applies to contribution, and not to benefit and is for the purposes of this Schedule.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendments made: Add at end of the Schedule ["except that, where the period of employment is two days or less, the contributions both of the employer and of the workman shall be reduced to one penny if the period does not exceed one day and to two pence if it exceeds one day: and in such case in reckoning the number of contributions under Part II. of this Act and the Schedules therein referred to contributions at such reduced rates shall be treated as two-fifths or four-fifths of a contribution as the case may require."]—[Mr. Buxton.]

Leave out Part II.—[Rate of reduced contributions by employer.]—[Mr. Buxton.]

Question, "That the Schedule, as amended, be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.