§ "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."
§ Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Mr. BATHURSTI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
It is in the interest of those who follow a custom which is widely prevalent in the North of England whereby small farmers and their families help each other, especially when they are short of labour, and those who so mutually give their assistance as neighbours naturally desire that when they take that course they should not be treated as ordinary employed contributors. On the face of it it is a reasonable appeal, and I cannot imagine that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Masterman) will have any reason for not accepting it. These persons do not belong to what is vulgarly called the working class. They simply give at exceptional times temporary assistance, and because they happen to do that and to receive some honorarium in partial remuneration for such labour, it would be 3273 clearly unnecessary and illogical to treat them as employed contributors and insist upon the provisions of the Act being applied to them.
§ Mr. MASTERMANI thought I explained yesterday and had fully satisfied the Member for Wilton who has just spoken that this Clause is covered by a more general Clause to which I referred yesterday which is in the name of the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Alden). He proposes to exempt persons who are ordinarily and mainly dependent for their livelihood on earnings derived by them from an occupation which is not employment, within the meaning of this Act. Ordinary farming is not compulsory as an insurable occupation, and therefore a person who is engaged in farming as his ordinary occupation is not all employed person within the meaning of the Act. The object of the hon. Member would be reached by the new Clause later on, and I hope he will withdraw in favour of it.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSWould the right hon. Gentleman say whether under this other Clause it will be necessary to get a certificate of exemption?
§ Mr. MASTERMANYes, and so also it SN ill under this new Clause.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI should have thought not. That is the difference which applies to the other Clause. The proposal of the Member for Wilton does not require a certificate of exemption at all. Ipso facto the exemption will exist. They would not be employed people, and could never be brought under the Act.
§ Mr. MASTERMANNo, no.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSIf he will read the Clause he will see that it says that farmers and members of the families of farmers employed in assisting neighbouring, farmers temporarily in time of harvest shall be exempted from the provision of Part I. of the principal Act. There is nothing there to say they shall be exempted by the Commissioners or that they shall apply for a certificate. It states they shall be exempted and shall not come under the provisions of the Act at all. The other Clause is a totally different affair. It simply provides still another ground for a certificate of exemption. In the nature of the case the farmer does not know whether he is going to be called in to help another or not. It may be an extraordinarily heavy hay crop, and ordinary labour may be scarce, as it is this year, and a neighbour may be asked to lend a hand. My hon. Friend wants to give him protection. Otherwise under the provisions of the new 3274 Clause of the hon. Member for Tottenham what has got to be done? A farmer who is asked to lend a hand to a neighbour will say, "I must apply to the Insurance Commissioners first to get a certificate of exemption." That is not practical business. If any remuneration is given there will be a contract of service, a deduction will have to be made from the wages, and a stamp put upon the card. An hon. Member shakes his head.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSI am bound to assume that there would be a contract of service. There would be some payment and in that case a stamp would have to be fixed. I think the right hon. Gentleman may just as well accept this Amendment.
§ Mr. MASTERMANAs we have only a minute to go, I want to make an announcement, if the hon. Gentleman would not mind continuing his observations to-morrow. I think the Committee will realise that if we are to get the Bill this week, I must make an appeal to the Committee to make some special effort during the next two days. It is beyond all things undesirable to continue late next Friday, and, therefore, I shall tomorrow apply to be allowed to continue these sittings, notwithstanding the sitting of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Unless we do that, I do not think there is any chance of getting the Bill this week.
§ Mr. FORSTERWill the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is his proposal Is it intended to sit from 11.30 in the morning until 10 or 11 o'clock at night?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI have no intention of trying to brutalise things through. I mean that we should have a little longer time for debate, so that we may get the Bill through.
§ The CHAIRMANMembers will see that it would have been an advantage to-day if we I had a little more time to finish this Clause.
Mr. MacCALLUM SCOTTThere is a certain draft of a Clause dealing with societies who have members in several countries. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us some notice and place it upon the Paper, so that we may put down Amendments if we desire to do so?
§ Mr. MASTERMANI think I may have the Clause ready to-morrow.
§ The Committee adjourned at 4.0 p.m. until 11.30 a.m. to-morrow (Wednesday.)