NEW CLAUSE.—(Exemptions.) (Hansard, 15 August 1913)

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I beg to move. "That the Clause be read a second time."
This is a Clause dealing with a Subsection which has already been very largely discussed during the course of the Debate, and I think it meets with the approval of all parties.

§ Mr. GODFREY LOCKER-LAMPSON
I beg to move, after the word "dependent" ["ordinarily mainly dependent"] to insert the words "on some other person or."
I move this Amendment to the new Clause because, although I quite agree 3353 that the new Clause is an admirable reform of the present system, I do not think it goes far enough. If you look at the First Schedule, Part II., paragraph (h) of the Act, you will see that persons are exempted whose employment is of a casual nature otherwise than for the purposes of the the employer's trade or business. If it were not for those words, my Amendment would not be necessary. I submit that those words being inserted in the principal Act render an Amendment of this sort very desirable. There are a great many instances I could give, but I will take one of a young woman who lives at home for fifty weeks in the year, and for two weeks at Christmas time is employed in a shop—as many thousands are throughout the country—in the Christmas Card trade. She has to pay because she is employed for the purposes of her employer's trade or business. What happens to that young woman? She cannot join an approved society because the model rules of nearly every approved society ask a person desirous of becoming a member whether he or she is insurable within the meaning of the principal Act. I have here the model rules of the Prudential Society, and question No. 7 is: Are you qualified to be an insured person; If you turn to Section 79 of the principal Act, paragraph (5)—it is the Interpretation Section—you find that an insured person is a person whose normal occupation is employment within the meaning of this part of the Act, and if you turn to Section 1 of the principal Act, it begins by saying, Subject to the provisions of this Act, all persons of the age of sixteen or upwards who are employed within the meaning of this part of the Act, that is to say a person whose employment is not normal within the meaning of the Act is not an insured person. Therefore this young woman would not be able to answer question No. 7 of the Prudential Society in the affirmative, and she would become a Post Office contributor. If she becomes a Post Office contributor, she would not—

§ The CHAIRMAN
I have been looking at Section 2 of the principal Act, and it seems to me that the words proposed by the hon. Member are quite redundant. 3354 They repeat the words that are in paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of that Section, and put them into a new paragraph (c). There can be no possible uncertainty about it, that the principle is already in paragraph (b).

§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON
Under the present system, such a person as I have mentioned is raked within the four corners of the Insurance Act, becomes a deposit contributor, pays contributions for a limited number of weeks and gets absolutely Do benefit. By including these words in the proposed Clause, all cases of that sort would be safeguarded.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
It would not really make the slightest difference. The case of excepted persons is outside the scope of this Clause altogether. We are dealing here with exempted persons. The persons to whom the hon. Member refers can get exemption under the Act as it stands, and no alteration is therefore required. We are adding to the list of exempted persons largely, but not entirely to meet the request of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Bathurst) that persons such as farmers, whose normal occupation is not employment within the meaning of the Act, should not come within insurance, but should be able to get exemption.

§ The CHAIRMAN
Does the hon. Member press the Amendment?

§ Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON
No, Sir.

§ Mr. CASSEL
Although I quite agree that the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. G. Locker-Lampson) is unnecessary, as it is covered by the words in the principal Act, there is a difficulty arising in practice if these persons are not excepted, but only exempted persons. I have had the difficulty occur in practice. It is that of a person who is entitled to exemption, who gets employment lasting perhaps only a short time. I have had correspondence for three months with the Commissioners on the subject as to whether particular persons were exempted. The Commissioners gave reasons why they were not exempt. They gave very careful attention to the matter, and inquired into it fully. At the end of three months' correspondence I was able to convince them that the persons ought 3355 to be exempt. In the meantime, however, a person has or may have to pay the full contributions. In the case with which I was concerned, I absolutely refused to pay because the contributions which are paid while the question whether the person should be exempted or not is being discussed are lost. By the time the case is disposed of it is not worth while their getting exemption. When they again become employed the question again arises.

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
I think the hon. Member will see that that point can be met by acceleration in dealing with the exemptions. I remember the case quoted by the hon. Member, which he raised in the House of Commons. In the majority of cases now the exemptions are given with considerable rapidity.

§ Mr. NEWMAN
As the Clause stands, does it include a woman as well as a man?

§ Mr. MASTERMAN
Where the word "man" is mentioned, the woman always comes in.