CLAUSE 12.—(Amendment of Paragraph (c) of s. 8 (1) of Principal Act.) (Hansard, 5 August 1913)

Mr. FREDERICK HALL (Dulwich)
I beg to move to leave out the words "and for the purposes of that paragraph as so 1434 amended a day on which the incapacitated person was prevented by the incapacity from doing any effective work shall be treated as a day of incapacity, but a Sunday shall not be so treated unless the incapacitated person would but for the incapacity have worked on that day."
There seems to have been a good deal of discussion as to how Sunday should be treated. We had a very long discussion in Committee with reference to this matter, and it transpired that many societies had, irrespective of the regulations, taken Sunday as a fourth day. As the law stands at present if anybody happens to be taken ill on a Thursday, Thursday is the first day, Friday the second day, and Saturday the third day, but Sunday does not count. It will be admitted that there are heaps of different classes of employment which necessitate Sunday labour. It is impossible to do without it. It is very largely the case with regard to railway men, workmen employed on main drainage, tramway employés, and various other classes. Under this Clause as it is proposed in the Amending Bill Sunday is to be taken as one of the days, provided the man had any work to do on that day, but, as hon. Members know full well, many a man is called upon almost at the last moment to work on a Sunday when perhaps it is not his actual working day according to rota. A man is off duty on a given Sunday, but owing to certain circumstances an alteration is made which necessitates his going to work on that day. He has to prove conclusively to the Insurance Committee that notwithstanding that it was to be a day's rest yet according to the alteration he was called upon to work. I can see all sorts of trouble that is likely to arise if it is left in the present condition, and I cannot help thinking that it would be a great deal plainer and better if these words were left out so that there could be no possibility of doubt. That would do away with all the difficulty. Many Trade Unions have ignored the recognised conditions of the present Bill, and I think therefore that if these words were left out it would facilitate matters. It would give all these men who are at any time called upon to work on a Sunday a day to be counted as a fourth day, and it would do away with any disability.

Major HOPE
I beg to second the Amendment.
It seems to me that if the Clause is allowed to stand as it is it will 1435 prevent Sunday in any case being counted as a waiting day. At present some societies count Sunday as a waiting day and some do not, according to the rules of the society. Many societies who would not pay sickness benefit on a Sunday count Sunday as a waiting day. I think that we should leave the law as it stands at present and allow societies to count Sunday as a waiting day or not as they please. I am confident that in Scotland at all events the majority of the societies do count Sunday as a waiting day. If anybody turns up the handbook on sickness issued by the Scottish Commissioners, he will see that in the opinion of the Scottish Commissioners Sunday should be counted as a waiting day. It also affects farm servants considerably who are ill for short periods, and, if Sunday is cut out from counting as a waiting day, when a farm servant is taken ill on a Friday or Saturday he will certainly have to wait four whole days and may have to wait nearly five days before he gets any benefit. As the law stands at present, this is the only result if a man is taken ill, on Wednesday.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
We had considerable debate in Committee on this waiting day Clause, and two points emerged. The first was whether sickness benefit commenced on or from the fourth day, and it was unanimously agreed that it commenced on that day. This Amendment however does not touch that point. Then it was suggested that Sundays should be counted under all circumstances, even if it was a day on which a man would otherwise habitually be working and he would actually lose wages. The opinion seemed to be that the arrangement embodied in the Clause is a fair one. But the hon. Member is trying to secure that Sunday shall count at all times. That I think would inflict considerable hardship. No doubt if Sunday is a day upon which a man is ordinarily working it should be counted, and that is the purport of the Clause. I hope the House will leave it at that, as that is the form on which the Committee agreed.

§ Mr. CASSEL
There was, it is true, considerable debate in Committee on this question, and I pointed out that in my view under the Act as it stood unamended Sunday would have counted in every case. No doubt it is the practice of friendly societies notwithstanding the words of the 1436 original Act not to count Sundays in the waiting days. But in my opinion the words of the Clause are peculiarly inapt for carrying out the decision come to by the Committee. They are too involved and if any Court were asked to adjudicate upon them I have not the slightest idea what interpretation it would place upon them. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the words inserted somewhat hurriedly in the discussion in Committee, he will see what difficulties there are. They run "a day on which the incapacitated person was prevented by incapacity from doing any effective work." First one would have to consider whether the person was actually prevented by incapacity not merely for doing work, but from doing effective work. What "effective" means I do not know. Secondly one would have to consider whether it really was a day on which even apart from the incapacity the person would have had immunity from any work at all. Suppose the illness occurred during a period of unemployment. Could the man have done effective work even if not rendered incapable by illness? It would seem as if this Clause was so ambiguously worded, that if ever it came before a Court to be interpreted, it is impossible to say in what way it would be construed. Whether it would be construed as meaning that you must consider whether the person, even if well, could have got employment on that particular day or not, I do not know. It is extremely difficult to say what the meaning of "effective" is. You have to consider not merely whether a person is capable of work, but whether he is capable of effective work. It is introducing a new word, which may have a serious bearing on the rights of insured persons, and limit those rights. I think it is extremely desirable to adopt the Amendment.

§ Mr. BOOTH
On a point of Order. Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech show that this Amendment would increase a charge? If the waiting day is removed, it must increase the amount of medical benefit and the charge upon the State.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
I think the Amendment is more a definition of the words as to the waiting day, and that the House may very fairly look at it from that point of view.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
May I appeal to the House upon this matter? No ques- 1437 tion of all the questions discussed in Committee was more thoroughly threshed out, and there was no question upon which there was a greater general desire to come to an agreement. Finally, after hours of discussion, the Clause which is now in the Bill was offered to the Committee by my right hon. Friend as being the best general solution. When it was offered Members on both sides agreed that with such a difficult problem it was the best solution; so much so, that the hon. and learned Member for West St. Pancras (Mr. Cassel), although he made his protest, as he has done to-night, agreed not to divide against it. In these circumstances I suggest that the House might accept the Clause as the solution of a difficult problem and as having the united support of all sides of the Committee.

§ Mr. FORSTER
The right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind the circumstances in which the Committee accepted the Clause. Those who were on the Committee will remember what a scramble it was. We were doing our level best to finish, and although we had a long discussion and did not divide against the Clause, can hon. Members feel that the words were wholly satisfactory? I, for one, never felt satisfied with the actual form of words relating to Sunday, and I think it will be better to leave out the word "Sunday" altogether. Whatever form of words we hit upon will be open to objection. The main point with which we were endeavouring to deal in Committee is undoubtedly dealt in the Clause, and I do not know whether we can carry it further.

§ Mr. POLLOCK
May I ask whether Sunday work is different from week-day work? Incapacity on a week day is to be incapacity from doing effective work, and the word "effective" is not used in regard to Sunday. I should have thought that as a matter of drafting, if the intention was that they should both be treated the same, that the words should be the same. There is a distinction drawn between the two. I do not know whether it is a draftsman's error. Personally, I have, the greatest difficulty in understanding either the Clause or the distinction.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
I will look into that.

§ Mr. C. BATHURST
I beg to move to leave out the words "doing any effective 1438 work," and to insert instead thereof the words "effectively working at his usual employment."
It is almost necessary to put in some such words as these, in order to be quite certain that the person who is enjoying a waiting day could not be employed upon any work other than his ordinary work. It has been pointed out by a large society of several thousand members in the North of England that if a man can prove that he would have been working in his garden on what would otherwise be regarded as a waiting day, that would be sufficient for the purpose of the Clause. What is clearly intended is that no day should be regarded as a waiting day except such a day on which he would have been capable of working at his own employment.

§ Dr. MACNAMARA
The effect of the Amendment would be that the man might go away and be fully employed at some other occupation, and that might count as a working day. I do not think we can accept that. The hon. Member would be well advised to leave the Clause as it stands.