Captain FABERasked why a man receiving 3s. a day and paid daily, and thus receiving 9s. a week, should pay 4d., whilst 395 the man who works by the week and gets 9s. should pay nothing under the Insurance Bill?
Mr. McKINNON WOODI do not follow the hon. Member's arithmetic. Three shillings a day is 18s. a week, not 9s. a week. If he means that the man only works three days a week in every week, then he has three free days for other employment or occupation.
§ Mr. ALBERT SMITHSuppose a man can prove he does not work more than three days a week, what is his position then?
Mr. McKINNON WOODThe figures are fixed for the purpose of determining the contribution between employer and employed.
§ Mr. LANSBURYWhat would happen to a man who worked one day in the week? Would he be obliged to pay a full week's contribution, both for sickness benefit and unemployment benefit?
Mr. McKINNON WOODThat was a question to be discussed when dealing with the Bill, and that question has been discussed.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI really would like to know. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that outside there is very great confusion in the minds of the workers as to whether the contributions are to be levied on daily wages or weekly wages? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us if that is in the Bill?
Mr. McKINNON WOODThe proportional contributions from employer and employed depends upon the rate of wages calculated by the different rules very clearly set out in the Bill.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThat means for one day there is to be a deduction?
§ Mr. HUNTCan the right hon. Gentleman tell us in the case of a man who only gets work two days a week and only receives 6s. per week, will he have to pay the full 4d. or will he come under the same Clause as people who only get 9s. per week or 1s. 6d. per day?
Mr. McKINNON WOODThere is no secret about it; it is very clearly stated in the Bill. I thought every Member of the House knew what the provisions of the Bill were.
§ Mr. HUNTIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have asked this question before and never got an answer?
Mr. McKINNON WOODThe hon. Member ought not to ask questions which are answered on the face of the Bill and were settled by the House after very full discussion.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that I had a distinct promise from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that casual labourers would be specially considered to meet the very point raised in the question?
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEasked whether hop-pickers, berry-pickers, potato-lifters, and others employed on casual work of such a nature can be dealt with under Schedule 1, Part II., Clause (i) of the National Insurance Bill?
Mr. McKINNON WOODThe paragraph in question is intended to meet the case of employments which are in their nature subsidiary to other employment, and not a principal means of livelihood. The employments in question, though temporary in their nature, may be adopted as a means of livelihood, but the question would be one for the Insurance Commissioners to determine upon the facts.
MARQUESS of TULLIBARDINEMay I ask what the ideas of the Treasury are upon the subject as foreshadowed in their letter of the 3rd November, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated their position had not been overlooked, and that their position was under consideration?
Mr. McKINNON WOODI should be very rash to answer the Noble Lord's question, not having the letter before me. I confess I have not even seen it.