HC Deb 15 August 1913 vol 56 cc3179-85

"A person whose normal occupation is not employment within the meaning of the principal Act, but who nevertheless is engaged in such occupation for a short period, shall not be all insured person under the principal Act."

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

I think the state of exceptions under Clause 7 is very uncertain. I asked the right hon. Gentleman when we were discussing Clause 7 if under it the Insurance Commissioners would be able to cat casual labour out of insurance altogether, and I gathered from his reply that they would not be able to do so. The words of Clause 7 are extremely vague. Sub-section (1) of that Clause provides that— The Insurance Commissioners may by Special Order modify the principal Act in its application to persons whose employment is of a casual or intermittent nature. The Clause goes on— and any such Order may apply either generally or to any one or more particular trades or industries. It seems to me that the Insurance Commissioners, as a matter of fact, under these powers could cut out casual labour altogether if they thought fit to do so, but we have to go upon the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and he told us the other day that they would not be able to do so. We were told that casual labour in the future, as in the past, would come under the Insurance scheme. Therefore on the basis of that statement this Clause is extremely unsatisfactory, because the right hon. Gentleman has given us no indication of what benefits these people are going to get in the various industries and in the different districts. We do not in the least know what their contributions are going to be. In many cases they will be so small that the benefits will practically not be worth having at all. In some cases the contributions are so small in the aggregate that possibly even medical benefit would not be able to be given. The Government have given no indication of what the benefits are going to be, and, therefore, I formally propose this Amendment, in order to get an explanation from the Government.

Dr. MACNAMARA

It is not proposed in Clause 7, which gives general powers for preparing schemes, that we should affect either by the Clause or any schemes under the Clause the provision for exemptions in the second part of the first Schedule or in the provisions for exemptions in the original Act under Section 1, Sub-section (b). Therefore I think there has been some misunderstanding. If the hon. Member hag in mind employment of a kind subsidiary to some other employment which forms his main source of income, then undoubtedly the original Act, which will not be affected by Clause 7 of this Bill, covers the case he has in mind.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

Intermittent labour?

Dr. MACNAMARA

The point is sufficiently covered by the original Act. There is a Clause that a person excepted under Part II. who has some occasional occupation is rendered liable to compulsory insurance. I think Section 2 of the principal Act dealing with exceptions might possibly be extended with advantage. Sub-section (1) of Section 2 provides that— Where any person employed within the meaning of this part of this Act proves that he is either. Here follows paragraph (a), and then comes the following words— (b) Ordinarily and mainly dependent for his livelihood upon some other person; he shall be entitled to a certificate exempting him from the liability to become or to continue to be insured under this part of this Act. I am not sure whether some extension of that is not necessary in order to avoid a grievance. There are two Amendments on the Paper in the form of new Clauses which I think might very well be added after Paragraph (b) of Section 2 in the principal Act. One stands in the name of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Alden), and the other in the name of the hon. Member for Hoxton (Dr. Addison). The hon. Member for Tottenham has on the Paper the following proposed new Clause— "In 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. I think that is a wise and expedient extension, and we shall be prepared to accept that proposal.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

The right hon. Gentleman has referred to a very interesting proposal on page 75 of the Amendment Paper but it has nothing whatever to do with the proposal made by my hon. Friend. The proposal on page 75 may be right or wrong, but it will be a day or two before we get to it, and I am not sure whether we need discuss it now. The proposal made by my hon. Friend has to do with casual labour, and not the more artistic forms of labour referred to on page 75 of the Amendment paper. What my hon. Friend wants is that people should not be compelled to contribute for occasional labour when that labour is not their ordinary occupation in life especially where the contributions obtained from them under those circumstances are so small that no possible benefit can be given to them in return. To say that another Amendment on a totally different subject is going to receive the support of the Government does not answer the case made out by my hon. Friend, and if his proposal is pressed to a division I shall certainly vote for it, because I am conscious that there are a very large number of cases where contributions are exacted without thought or prospect of any benefit.

Dr. MACNAMARA

They will be met in the way I have described.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

The way to meet them is to exclude them from contributions until the Government at any rate has produced some scheme for giving them benefit.

Mr. WING

I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment because I think it will lead to a large amount of confusion. In my opinion it is a very dangerous Amendment indeed.

Sir RANDOLF BAKER

I hope the Government will reconsider their decision, and agree to this new Clause. There is one particular class who are compelled to be insured, and who in all probibility will get no benefits. I refer to men in the position of overseers, estate agents, and farm bailiffs, who during harvest time assist the farmer and by actually doing work in the field come in under the Act.

Mr. MASTERMAN

I hope the hon. Member will not press his proposal. I think as far as there is any injustice to the persons concerned it is fairly met by the Amendments we propose to accept to the present arrangement. If they are mainly dependent upon someone else, they do not pay insurance. Take for instance a woman who goes fruit-picking when she is mainly dependent upon her husband's earnings. She obtains exemption under the Act if she desires it, but some of them do not desire it, and it would be hard to put them out if they did desire it. The only place where there is a leakage is where people come in to this sort of casual employment and are not dependent upon their husbands. That we meet by accepting the new Clause put down by the hon. Member for Tottenham. I think the Member for Colchester (Mr. Worthington-Evans) will agree that it does give the power of exemption which is desired, and that it is as much as ought to be desired in the present circumstances.

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

Not as much.

Mr. MASTERMAN

If you are going to put out all who are engaged in casual labour for a short period you shut them out, not only from their own contributions, but from the employers' contributions and you are offering an enormous inducement to employers to employ 'casual labour instead of normal labour. I respectfully suggest that in all quarters it would be felt that that was a disastrous mistake.

Mr. BATHURST

I want to be quite sure that I am going to save my own Clause dealing with a portion only of this subject, which may be lost if this is defeated. With regard to my Clause it deals with harvest time and says: "Farmers and members of the families of farmers employed in assisting neighbouring farmers temporarily in time of harvest shall be exempted from the provisions of Part I. of the principal Act." I have had special requests from the Northern counties, and particularly from Lancashire, that such a Clause should be accepted. I shall not go into the details. I simply wish to ask, if this wider Clause is defeated, would it be possible for me to move the Clause dealing with the specific case to which have I referred?

Dr. ADDISON

I respectfully suggest to hon. Members opposite that although this is a matter which meets with a great deal of sympathy from many Members on this side, I think it is hardly the right way of obtaining what we want, because what you are specifically doing by this Amendment is to shut out a number of persons according to this definition, which would be exceedingly difficult to apply. You shut them out of insurance altogether from both the employers' and their own contribution. I think it would be much better to proceed by way of exemption, and leave if you like the onus upon the Government to devise some scheme which will give these people some benefit commensurate with their contributions, but do not cut them out so that they will make no contribution at all. If you do that you will be causing them a serious injustice. If you look at the terms of the Amendment you will see that it will be exceedingly difficult to apply. It speaks of a person who is "engaged in such occupation for a short period." "A short period" may be a recurrent short period, and there is nothing in the Clause to say what "a short period" is. A woman hop-picking in one district may be engaged for a short period, but she may come from a district where she has been picking strawberries, and has also been engaged for a short period. I think the thing would break down if you tried to apply it. It is better to proceed by way of exemption rather than by way of exclusion.

Mr. GWYNNE

The hon. Member for Hoxton who has just spoken has asked us to leave this difficulty for the Government to settle. Usually the Government tell us to leave it to the Commissioners to settle. Anything at all, except face the difficulty ourselves in this room. The hon. Gentleman also tells us that the words of the Amendment are vague. I suggest that if

Division No. 10.] AYES.
Baker, Sir Randolf Forster, Mr. Locker-Lampson, Mr. Godfrey
Bathurst, Mr. Charles Gwynne, Mr. Rupert Tryon, Captain
Boyle, Mr. William Lawson, Mr. H. Worthington-Evans, Mr.
Cassel, Mr.

he reads the Amendment on the same subject which is in the name of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Alden), to which the Secretary to the Admiralty has referred, he will find it much more vague, because it raises many more doubts.

Dr. ADDISON

That is an individual business. You can judge each case on its merits. This is a general exemption applying to the Clause.

Mr. GWYNNE

If one is vague the other is more vague. I do think it is very unfortunate that the only answer which we get on a matter of such importance is a reference given by the right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Macnamara) to an Amendment some ten pages further on which is not down in the name of the Government, and which we have no right to discuss at the present moment. That does not answer the point of the Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson). I ask the Government what are you going to do to meet the difficulties of these men who are engaged in casual labour and who undoubtedly do not get benefits worth contributing for It cannot be denied for a moment that many of these men are paying these forced contributions and are getting nothing at all in return. If the Government cannot accept this, if they are afraid of wholesale exemption, will they tell us how they are going to get over the difficulty and make the position of these men more reasonable and fair?

Mr. MASTERMAN

I think the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Wiltshire (Mr. C. Bathurst) will come up on the proposed new Clause of the Member for Tottenham, because these farmers' sons and brothers would not be ordinarily engaged in that employment within the meaning of the Act. In the present case, I think it would be fully covered by the exemption which we propose to adopt in connection with the new Clause of the Member for Tottenham. The effect of this new Clause would enormously encourage casual labour in this country, and no one on the Committee, I think, would like to vote for a thing which would be the result of accepting this Amendment.

Question put, "That the proposed Clause be read a second time."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 10; Noes, 18.

NOES.
Addison, Dr. Jones, Mr. Glyn- O'Grady, Mr.
Alden, Mr. Lardner, Mr. Roberts, Mr. George
Booth, Mr. Macdonald, Mr. Ramsay Pearce, Mr. William
Falconer, Mr. Macnamara, Dr. Scott, Mr. MacCallum
Harcourt, Mr. Robert Masterman, Mr. Warner, Sir Courtenay
Harvey, Mr. Edmund Money, Mr. Chiozza Wing, Mr.