§ 43 and 44. Mr. RUPERT GWYNNEasked (43) whether the carrying on of an estate in the country comes within the terms of a business under the decisions by the Umpire, Part II. of the National Insurance Act (Unemployment), as published in the "Board of Trade Journal," page 606, of 13th June, 1912; and (44) whether, in view of the fact that he has announced that estate carpenters who are employed partly in fencing and so forth, and partly in repairs to cottages, etc., will have to be insured under Part II. of the National Insurance Act, whilst carpenters employed mainly in fencing and occasionally in repairs to wagons, cottages, etc., will not have to be insured under Part II., the right hon. Gentleman will state how an employer is to decide now whether estate carpenters should be insured or not, seeing that he cannot tell in advance what work will have to be carried out during the year, and bearing in mind that estate work varies considerably from month to month?
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson)I do not think that the hon. Member has quite correctly stated the effect of the Umpire's decisions as bearing on the employment of estate carpenters in rural districts. I have, of course, no authority to give a binding interpretation of these decisions, but as the matter is of some interest it may be for the convenience of the House that I should state my view of the matter. The position, as I understand it, is that estate carpenters in a rural district whose principal occupation is the construction or repair of buildings must be insured. Those, however, who are em- 390 ployed wholly or mainly in fencing or other non-insurable occupations, and only occasionally in building operations, need not be insured, and consequently no step need be taken in such cases unless and until it is proposed to change their principal occupation and to employ them wholly or mainly on building work. In such an event it will, of course, be necessary for them to be insured. I have assumed that the cases to which the question relates arise in rural districts to which Section 97 of the Act applies, but my reply is also applicable to similar cases in other districts except that in such cases the nature of the carpenter's principal occupation would have to be determined at each payment of wages in relation to the period for which the wages are paid, and not to a long period, such as a year. There is no doubt that Part II. of the Act applies to estate workmen.
§ Mr. R. GWYNNEArising out of that reply, will the hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of my question, in which I ask him how an employer is to determine what work a man is going to do in the future, and will he also say what will be the position of the employed person if he is working, say, one month at building operations and is taxed accordingly, and the following month at fencing, and is not taxed? Will he have to lose his contributions?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member had better put down a complicated question of that kind.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTI should like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether that reply would apply where a man is mainly employed in fencing in a stone wall country?
§ Mr. PRETYMANMay I ask the hon. Gentleman if his answer does not imply that he would have to insure an estate carpenter one month and not another month, or even one week and not another week?
Mr. ROBERTSONYes, that might arise, and it is the reply to the question, as I understand it, put by the hon. Member, for Eastbourne.
Mr. TYSON WILSONWill the hon. Gentleman consult his colleague with the object of either excluding or including all these men?
§ Captain CLIVEWill a man insurable one month be treated as unemployed another month when he is only employed at uninsurable work?
Mr. ROBERTSONThe answer I have given, I think, meets that case. If hon. Members have further points to raise, perhaps they will give notice.
MARQUESS Of TULLIBARDINEThese men are often put on other work in order to prevent them being unemployed; and is the hon. Member aware that if they are treated in this way it may create unemployment?
§ Mr. R. GWYNNEIn view of the fact that this is the second time I have put it down, and that the wages will be due at the end of this week, will the hon. Gentleman give me a definite answer to the latter part of my question?