HC Deb 15 August 1913 vol 56 cc3243-7

"In Section 48, Sub-section (1), of the principal Act, the following words shall be inserted—

Provided that in respect of that part of such period as aforesaid during which the owner of the ship is not liable under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment, to pay wages to the master, seaman, or apprentice so suffering from disease or disablement, sickness benefit may be paid in whole or part if such master, seaman, or apprentice has dependents, and the benefit so paid shall be paid to or applied for the relief or maintenance of such dependents in such manner as the society or committee by which the benefit is administered, after consultation whenever possible with such person, thinks fit."

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Mr. WILLIAM BOYLE

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

The object of the Clause is to enable an approved society to pay sickness benefit in respect of masters, seamen and apprentices, who have dependants, during the time that they receive no wages when ill. I think that when the Committee appreciate what a great hardship is being done in certain cases, I shall receive their sympathy and support. This matter was brought to my notice by a letter from the Secretary of the imperial Merchant Service Guild, in which it was stated that at a recent meeting of the Committee of Management of the Seamen's National Insurance Society the chairman of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, Captain T. B. Walker, pleaded the case of a wife and four children of the chief officer of a steamer who, through illness, had been left behind in hospital in a port on the River Plate. Captain Walker suggested that out of the funds of the society the wife of this officer should be granted an allowance of 10s. a week, but the chairman of the committee advised the committee that they had no power to make such an allowance while the officer was in hospital in a foreign country. It seems to me that there is a case involving very great hardship. Here was a woman, with four children dependent upon her, whose husband was in hospital on the River Plate. Probably the woman was unable to communicate with him in any way. His wages were stopped, and there was no income coming in upon which the woman could depend to provide for the children. I do not think that any member of this Committee who really put himself in the position of the woman to whom I have referred would for one moment doubt the urgent necessity of changing the law in this respect. I hope I may have the sympathy of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. It is not often that I have troubled the Committee with any remarks. If any prize is offered in order to get the Bill through and to prevent Members speaking, except when they have something to say, I think I am entitled to that prize, and in asking for it I might say that the right hon. Gentleman could not help me more than by accepting the Clause which I now move.

Mr. THOMAS

I have on the Paper a new Clause which has precisely the s me object as that of the hon. Gentleman opposite. The case which the hon. Member has cited may be an isolated case, but the principle that we desire to establish is applicable to thousands of men. At present if any man is in hospital his vice or dependents are entitled to the sick pay of 10s. a week; but if a seaman is taken ill and deprived of his wages the Commissioners have decided not only that his wife and family are not entitled under the Act, but that the approved societies who have all along been willing to pay cannot pay. The result is that in a town like Grimsby, where there are hundreds of fishermen t o whom this applies, there has been serious hardship and distress as the result of the operation of the Act. Therefore, since the hon. Member is aiming at precisely the same object as I am anxious to secure, I whole-heartedly support his proposal. I do not know whether his wording or mine is the better, but that is a detail. We are anxious to secure the principle, and in so far as this Clause does that I am in whole-hearted agreement with him.

Dr. MACNAMARA

I very much sympathise with the views which have been expressed. Under Section 48 (1) of the original Act, sickness benefit is not paid during any period in which the owner is liable to pay the cost of medical treatment and maintenance. But if a man is on foreign service and is put into a hospital the owner's liability for wages ceases, although he is continued liable for medical treatment. But no sickness benefit can be paid to dependants in that case. That is one aspect of the case. That is the point which the hon. Member desires to meet. If the man is brought back to the United Kingdom and put on shore he is entitled to the full benefits of the Act, and no question arises. If he is in the home service and has by any chance to go into a hospital in a foreign port around these Islands, there is a real difficulty; because, although he is in the home service and has paid full contributions, if he is put into a foreign hospital the societies cannot pay sickness benefit to his dependents. That is the whole field which it is desired to cover. The proposal of the hon. Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) is restricted to the case of the man I have last quoted. I should have been prepared at once to accept the more restricted form, but I think we shall have to give the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (Mr. Boyle) his prize. We shall have to agree that in all cases, whether the man is on foreign service or on home service, if he fall sick and is put into hospital his dependents, whose conditions under these circumstances is often very serious, ought to have the sickness benefit. The matter is one of considerable urgency, and while, as I say, I should have been prepared first of all to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Derby, I am sure my hon. Friend will not mind my accepting the broader form covering both forms of service. A slight modification of the wording will be necessary. The words "under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment" do not apply. The liability does not wise in connection with that Act. It arises in connection with a contract under common law. Therefore, these words are not necessary and ought to be taken out. I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree to the acceptance of the Clause with the omission of these words.

Mr. D. BOYLE

Which words?

Dr. MACNAMARA

The words "under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment." As I say, those words are not applicable, and therefore should be taken out.

Mr. FORSTER

We will have to take our guidance in this matter from the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. Personally, being a layman, I am not in the least qualified to express an opinion as to whether or not the excision of these words will widen or narrow the thing. We must rely upon the guidance that the right hon. Gentleman gives us, and I understand he is finally dependent—

Dr. MACNAMARA

I am advised.

Mr. FORSTER

In those circumstances I think my hon. Friend should agree.

Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.

Amendment to the proposed new Clause—to leave out the words "under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, as amended by any subsequent enactment"—put, and agreed to.

Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, be added to the Bill."

Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANS

I believe there is a point about the wages or payment of the apprentices. I regret I was not here while this matter was originally discussed, but I understand the apprentices do not get wages in the ordinary sense of the term, and I have forgotten for the moment what the allowance is called. It is given by the shipowners. I refer to those boys who are under articles of apprenticeship. Is the word "wages" in this new Clause inclusive of this payment or allowance to the boys?

Dr. MACNAMARA

I will look into that matter between now and Report.

Question put, and agreed to.

The CHAIRMAN

As a matter for the convenience of the Committee, might I appeal to hon. Members who have obviously duplicate Clauses down to hand in notice before the end of the day to have them off the Order Paper? If they do that it will greatly simplify the references. I have no power to take off the duplicates, and there are a great many. Members, perhaps, will be good enough to look over the Paper, and see what are obviously duplicates.

Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON

On a point of Order, Mr. Chairman. If Amendments are exactly similar, is it not possible for all the names to be printed with the same Amendment? I gathered from you just now that it was not in order to do so. Is it necessary that Amendments which are exactly similar should be written out separately as new Clauses? It makes the Order Paper very much more complicated. If an Amendment is exactly similar to another, I do not see why hon. Members concerned should not have their names printed over it.

The CHAIRMAN

I understand that the procedure adopted is the custom of the Committee. Obviously, when an Amendment is handed in, as the next one on the Paper, in the names of three hon. Members, it stands in their names, but the officials are naturally very jealous of interfering with precedent. Still, if hon. Members will kindly adopt my suggestion, it will simplify the Order Paper, and I am sure will be most acceptable to the Committee.