HC Deb 05 August 1913 vol 56 cc1309-15

After paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 2 of the principal Act which relates to exemptions, the following paragraph shall be added:— (c) Ordinarily and mainly dependent for his livelihood on the earnings derived by him from an occupation which is not employment within the meaning of this Act.

Mr. C. BATHURST

I beg to move, in paragraph (c), after the word "meaning" ["within the meaning of this Act"], to insert the words "of Part I."

Part I. of the principal Act sets out the various occupations which are deemed to be employment within the meaning of the Act, and thereby constitute a person engaged in them an employed contributor. Unless the words "of Part I." are added, it might conceivably apply to occupations which are found in Part II., which are excepted employments which do not constitute an employed contributor within the meaning of the Act. In order to make the meaning of this Clause quite definite, it is necessary to add these words to show that it is intended to include those occupations which constitute employment within the meaning of the principal Act, and not those occupations which are not employment within the meaning of the principal Act.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I think we might consider this. I am not quite sure that the words are necessary, but I am inclined to think they are.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. C. BATHURST

I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert "(2) In all cases where the employer is under a legal obligation to pay wages during sickness to any person employed by him in accordance with any established custom or Common law, then and in every such case the employer shall be exempt from liability to pay contributions under the National Insurance Act and the Insurance Commissioners shall make an order that the employer's contribution shall be paid by the person so employed."

This is intended to meet the case which was raised by the hon. Gentleman (Sir Luke White), in consequence of an assurance which was given to the National Farmers' Union by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to those men who are in the habit of living-in in farms in the North of England, receiving board and lodging and, in addition, a money way of 10s. to 12s. a week. In those cases, when a man feels ill, he gets, of course, the whole benefit of the attendance upon him while he is sick and his board and lodging and, in addition, sickness benefit under the Act. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, when this was pointed out on the Second Reading, said he thought it was a matter which required consideration, and I suggest that it does, because it is a direct incentive to malingering, as well as operating an injustice to the farmer. I think this custom is prevalent in Lancashire, parts of Yorkshire, Durham, and Northumberland, and it is a case which is not covered by Section 47 of the principal Act, which permits a deduction in the amount payable, both by employer and employed, in those cases, which are also common in the North of England and Scotland, where the farmer pays a man his full wages for six weeks and no longer. This is a case where the farmer makes provision for the accommodation of his employé throughout the whole of his illness and pays him full wages during that time, and it was brought to the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer by a deputation from the National Farmers' Union, representing many thousands of farmers all over the country—a very strong trade union—to whom he gave an undertaking some two years ago that he would give attention to the matter, and see whether he could not provide that such employers should be exempt from the payment of the employer's contribution under the Act. Representations have come, I believe, from members on all sides of the House, from the National Farmers Union and from similar bodies, urging them to give attention to the matter and remove what appears to be an admitted grievance.

Dr. MACNAMARA

In the original Act, we tried to deal with cases of this kind by Section 47, in which if six weeks' sickness is guaranteed by the employer there is a reduction in the contribution of a penny, both by the employer and the employed, which is not a bad way of dividing it, and I think some 80,000 persons are now insured under the operations of Section 47. I do not know that any case has been made for an extension of Section 47, because I do not know how many persons really undertake as a legal obligation to pay sick pay to their employés for a year; but I am quite sure that if anything is to be done to meet that case it must be done by extension of Section 47, and not in the way the hon. Member suggests. He suggests that where a legal obligation only extends to sick pay, the employed shall pay full insurance, not only for the year's sickness, but for sanatorium and maternity benefit, for permanent disablement and for medical and all the other benefits under the Act. I am not at all sure how the actuarial calculations would work out of a year's obligation during sickness as distinct from six weeks, but I am quite sure, owing to the very much more numerous cases where men are ill for something like six weeks, it would be a very diminishing amount. It might only be an actuarial calculation of a halfpenny or a farthing. Under these circumstances, it seems to me impossible to say that the employed person, just because of the obligation of providing for sickness being upon the employer for a short period of time, should have to pay the whole of the employer's contribution which goes through all the various parts of the insurance, including the administration part of the approved society, and the medical benefit which is a very expensive insurance, and the others. There would be no guarantee under this Clause, if we passed it, that at the end of the time there might not be permanent disability of the insured person, and under those circumstances it seems to me quite unfair that the employed person alone in those cases should be bearing the whole burden of his insurance, whereas in other cases the employer is contributing his share. I do not think we ought to abolish Section 47, which this would do, to meet a comparatively few possible hard cases. Therefore, I should very strongly ask the House not to accept the Clause.

Mr. FORSTER

I really regret very much that the right hon. Gentleman has not even reiterated the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the case which was brought before the notice of the House on the Second Reading by the hon. Member (Sir Luke White) should receive the attention of the Government.

Dr. MACNAMARA

It has.

Mr. FORSTER

If it has received the attention of the Government they appear to be quite content to leave things as they are. The result of leaving things as they are is that the labouring population who are brought under the provisions of Section 47 may be far better off when they are sick than when they are well. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that that was undesirable. The Secretary to the Treasury apparently does not think it is. I hope, at any rate, that the Secretary to the Treasury will take counsel with the Chancellor of the Exchequer with a view to putting things on a more satisfactory footing. The hon. Gentleman (Sir Luke White) referred to a legal decision which had just been given that the labourer was entitled to the whole of his wages, and that the employer was not allowed to deduct anything on account of his contribution. In other words the employer was compelled to pay his full contribution though he was at the same time paying full wages. The right hon. Gentleman has not taken counsel, apparently, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I only hope he will do so, because undoubtedly a real grievance exists.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. FREDERICK HALL (Dulwich)

I beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to insert "(d) A person employed by a hospital or other similar institution in any capacity, and who receives free medical treatment at such institution and the institution by whom they are employed."

It is a well-known fact that in all our hospitals the employés have been in the habit of receiving from their own medical officers free medical attendance, and it is generally admitted that all who are employed, and who sleep on the premises, if they are ill, are provided for during the whole time. They are in exactly the same position as if they were perfectly well. It seems hard, when one takes into consideration the enormous difficulties the hospitals have at present in obtaining the necessary funds to carry on their work—

Mr. BOOTH

Not in the North.

5.0 P.M.

Mr. HALL

I am afraid that many of the large London hospitals are perhaps not in the same comfortable position as those in the North, and I cannot help thinking, from my knowledge of the various Sections, and the way many of these Clauses were met in the Committee, that sympathy will be extended to hospitals in the South, which are not in such comfortable circumstances as those in the North. My only desire is that these people should not be handicapped any longer. They cannot possibly get anything out of the fund, and, of course, if it is said that there may he a way by which, eventually, it would be desirable that these hospitals should be nationalised, that is a question of a totally different description altogether. The only thing we have to look to is the condition of the hospitals at the present time, and the sources from which they obtain their funds. Under these circumstances, is it desirable that we should place upon them heavier charges now than they had to bear eighteen months ago? I hope the Financial Secretary will, at all events, be able to accept the Amendment. Even if he cannot accept it as to the hospitals, I hope he will accept it as to the persons employed, so as to mitigate the evil in some way or other.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I beg to second the Amendment.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press this Amendment. He is really proposing to except hospital employés under this Schedule on account of the free medical treatment which they receive from the institution; that is to say, the medical treatment which they receive for a specified period without any guarantee of wages. It would be regarded as an adequate substitution for the benefits under the Act, and I am quite sure the hon. Gentleman will see that this free medical attendance in the institution cannot be made a substitution for the benefits under the Act. The proposal is to relieve the hospitals of all liability in respect of the provision by them of benefits received in the institutions which are far less than the benefits under the Act as a whole. Supposing one of these persons leaves the hospital, he would be excepted by the operation of the Act. What will happen then? It will affect him seriously in the future. The medical officer of the hos- pital who provides the medical treatment can, with the concurrence of the other panel doctors, go on the panel for the purpose of treating the employé of the hospital. That gives the hon. Gentleman what he desires, and, therefore, the Government cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. HARRY LAWSON

The objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman is, I think, good in part. I quite agree with him that it would not be a proper thing for us to penalise the employés in hospitals in respect of sickness and disablement benefits, and to take from them what they have every right to expect. At the same time, as things now are, they are penalised in the other direction. If they were, and are now, receiving medical benefit, they are receiving treatment at the hospital, and therefore, in so far as they pay for that which they received before, they are in a worse position than they occupied before the Insurance Act was passed into law. Surely this goes for substituted benefit, and for a variation under Section 13 of the original Act! I do not gather that anything has been done in their favour. Why should not Section 13 be applied to their case? It is eminently one which ought to come under it, because I cannot see that there is any common advantage in a particular class of employé being damnified by the operation of the Insurance Act. That is what has happened. The Amendment of my hon. Friend may be far too wide, and I do not think the Government should be asked to accept it. It is a case that ought to be considered, for it has escaped their attention, and, so far as I know, the attention also of the Insurance Commissioners. I am glad that my hon. Friend has called attention to the case of hospital employés. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give some assurance that the Commissioners will take action in the matter, as they are empowered to do under Section 13 of the original Act.

Mr. CASSEL

I am afraid the wording of Section 13 of the original Act is not very perfect in this respect, because the benefit which he wishes to have commuted is medical benefit, and I think the only two benefits which can be commuted under that Section are sickness and disablement benefits. There seems to be a reason why the Government, not perhaps in this Bill this Session, but in the Amending Bill next Session, which is already promised, should extend Section 13 so as to enable them to apply it to medical benefit as well as to sickness and disablement benefits, in order that what my hon. Friend proposes may be carried out.

Amendment negatived.