HC Deb 22 November 1916 vol 87 cc1533-44

Order for Second Reading read

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS (Comptroller of the Household)

I should like to explain that this Bill, which is a small one, is intended to remove a discourage- ment to the temporary employment of women and other persons as war workers in agriculture. I need not dwell upon the vital need of doing everything to secure all available labour for the land, and I think the experiences of last year have amply proved to the Board of Agriculture that the services of women can be-successfully utilised, at all events, in a good many agricultural districts. The Board of Agriculture has made representations to the National Health Insurance Commission for some relaxation of the provisions of, the Insurance Act on this, point, and we think that if any relaxation is to be made it had best be done in this way. Briefly, the Bill proposes to enable persons of the normally non-insurable class who take up agricultural work as a war occupation, to remain outside the scope of compulsory health insurance if they wish. The difficulty which the Bill meets is really twofold. The Board of Agriculture has organised a plan of campaign throughout the country to enlist the services of women workers on the land. It is found in practice that many of the women can only spare part time, being engaged in household duties, consequently in, at all events, some parts of the country gangs of women are occupied which provide a uniform number continuously working, although the units of the gang are continuously changing. According to the law at present, the farmer has to pay an extra 3d. a week for each unit who does any kind of work during the week. That doubtless acts as a deterrent to the employment of women on farms.

There is another point. Many of these women are what is technically known in the Insurance Act as exempted persons. That is to say, the farmer himself has to contribute his 3d. a week, while they themselves are exempt from contributing. There is a good deal of misconception abroad in that case. These women are exempted persons for certain benefits under the Act. They are eligible for medical and sanatorium benefit, but that is not publicly known, and, even when it is known, and even though some benefits are available after a by no means excessive interval, yet it nevertheless happens that a good many women do not get these benefits, and in fact the Bill is asked for as much by the representatives of these women's organisations as by the farmers themselves. It is proposed to make special orders to exclude the class of workers who are normally not insurable from the provisions of the Insurance Act unless they themselves wish to enter into insurance. The Order may be made subject to any conditions specified in that Order, and it is not proposed if any persons wish to enter into insurance to exclude them. If they desire to be excluded they can be. It is, of course, strictly an Emergency Bill. These Orders are only to have effect for the duration of the War, and it is quite clear that under the conditions of peace different considerations would arise which could not be dealt with in this way. I cannot consent to open the door any wider than is proposed in the present Bill. It would be manifestly impracticable and unfair to cut out of the benefits of the Insurance Act any class of persons who are normally insured, and who have been already insured. We have taken their contributions, of course, and they would naturally expect the benefits obtainable under the Act. I think the farmers must understand that if we meet their susceptibilities on this point we cannot let down the standard of enforcement of the Act for other classes of workers, and we hope that, having made a concession to them on this point, we may have their co-operation in the general enforcement of the Act. I do not think they will have auy difficulty at present in contributing their 3d. in these cases, considering the present prices of agricultural produce, but we should like to get rid of any grievance, even if it is a fancied grievance, which can be quoted as an excuse for an apathetic refusal to try novel methods. The object of the Bill is to remove any chance of sand getting into the machinery, and to enable, at all events, a little extra available labour to be employed. I hope the House will approve the purpose of the Bill and will equally approve the method and the scope to which it is restricted, and if it does over so little to increase the labour available for the farmers at this moment, and if it does anything to increase the production of food in this country, I feel sure the House will gladly give it a Second Reading.

Captain BATHURST

I warmly welcome this little Bill as meeting a real necessity. In days such as these we do not want any sort of deterrent to prevent women and other temporarily employed persons who are willing to take up agricultural operations from doing what is an essential, a national work. The farmers are in many districts seriously depleted of labour, and are likely, even under improved Government administration, to continue to be seriously lacking in their normal requirements next year. The hon. Gentleman spoke as though the Bill applied exclusively or mainly to women, but it would apply to other people as well, for instance, to partially disabled soldiers who, one hopes, in the course of the next few weeks are going, for their good as well as the country's, to be given a certain amount of agricultural employment where they are fitted for it. But as regards women, it applies particularly to those classes of women who under normal circumstances would not have come under the provisions of the National Insurance Act at all, and for whom, in fact, the National Insurance Acts were never intended, and in this connection it is worthy of mention that the employment of women on farms is apt to be very occasional. Women, at any rate in England, are, we find, unfortunately deterred a good deal by stormy weather, and other conditions to which they are not used, which means that their employment is not continuous on farms. This will meet, of course, a case of that sort.

The drafting of the Bill seems to me to be somewhat unfortunate, and on the Committee stage I will move certain Amendments. For instance, we are told that it applies to those who are temporarily employed on or about any agricultural holding. There are considerable numbers of persons who are temporarily employed during the War who are not on or about agricultural holdings at all, but are doing very valuable work in connection with agricultural industry, as, for instance, taking milk from the farms to the nearest station or what is called in some districts higgling, going about collecting eggs from various small holdings, and others, in order to save labour, in conveying small consignments to the station. I suggest that that expression ought to be stretched sufficienly to enable it to cover all those who are temporarily employed in any way in connection with the agricultural industry during the War. In the following line there occurs the expression "men" in cansequence of the loss of men through enlistment, or transference to Government service, or other circumstances arising out of the present War. I do not know if this is a case where we ought to have a definition Clause to the effect that the term "men" in this Bill includes women. In Wales, probably in Ireland, and certainly in Scotland, there are a certain number of women who have been employed on agricultural holdings who have now left those holdings in order to go into munition factories and other attractive and lucrative forms of employment which the War has produced. I suggest amendment in these respects in order to make the Bill comprehensive.

Mr. NUGENT

I beg to move to leave out the word "now," and to add at the end of the Question the words "upon this day three months."

I move the postponement of this Bill because I feel that it is introduced to enable farmers to further block and destroy the good effects of the Insurance Act. The hon. Member who moved the Second Reading informed us that he wants to prevent sand from getting into the machine. I think the sand is there already. Everyone knows—and he should know better than anyone—that the number of people employed on farms and about farms who are not insured are very many. This Bill is intended to exempt a certain class of people from insurance. There is no definition of the class of people or how they are to be exempted. Is the Board of Trade to exempt them, or what is the authority which is to be empowered to issue exemption certificates to the people who are going to be employed upon farm work? The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Bathurst) states that there are people engaged in the practice of "higgling," making collections of eggs and other things. If we are going to have this, where is the thing going to end? He suggested that disabled soldiers are to be exempt. He hopes they may. I trust that this Bill will be postponed until we have a little more definite information, because our experience is that the various insurance Commissions are not very active in seeing that those who are employed on or about farms are insured. I think that is largely the case in this country as it is in Ireland. In Ireland a large body of the labour employed upon the farms is not insured, and effort is not made by the Commission in order to see that these people are insured. The Commissioners, or some of them, are more engaged at the present time in fixing up positions for their particular friends. We have had an experience in Ireland of how they mete out justice to those who have not sufficient personal influence with them. We have had a case recently—and I presume I am in order in dealing with it—in which a temporary clerk engaged upon the Commission was deliberately dismissed from his position in order to create a vacancy for the nominee of a Commissioner. Correspondence was suppressed, and the hon. Gentleman who represents here the General Insurance Commission is aware of the fact that the correspondence was suppressed. Although the whole of this matter was to be referred to a Committee appointed for the purpose, we had what I may describe as the scandal of the very culprits who suppressed the correspondence actually being constituted as the tribunal to try this particular man, without affording him an opportunity of appearing to give any evidence in his own defence.

This makes us feel that we cannot have absolute confidence that this Bill, which is so vague, will be administered in the spirit in which it should be administered. If the hon. Member who is responsible for this Bill had had our experience, he would have very little confidence as to the way in which the Commissioners will interpret the Act. If it is to be left absolutely with the Commission, where can we get satisfaction? Whatever correspondence is sent in will be deliberately suppressed and people victimised. The Insurance Act, so far as the farming and rural districts of Ireland are concerned, is not satisfactory. I do think that we ought not to agree to this Bill, which is of so sweeping a character, and which cuts into the whole foundations of the Insurance Act when it admits for the first time that people employed are to be exempt from insurance. That is the principle that is embodied in this Bill, and we have the hon. Member (Captain Bathurst), who represents the farming interests, wanting to extend it still further. The Comptroller of the Household perhaps thinks that when the sand is in the machine it will go no further. Our experience is that looseness of administration is indicated in the administration of the Insurance Act. Nobody will deny that it is loose. I think the best proof of its looseness is the information that I have given, which was at the disposal of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Roberts). We understood that a full and adequate inquiry would take place, and that full and adequate inquiry consisted in constituting the people who were guilty of the crime as the tribunal to decide the case and to cover up their own conduct. I believe that the best course is to postpone this Bill for a period of three months.

Mr. HAZLETON

I beg to second the Amendment.

I do so in order to enter a protest against the way in which Parliamentary-business is being conducted by some of the Under-Secretaries at the present time. We had an illustration of it at Question Time to-day. I suppose some Under-Secretaries are so preoccupied with other matters that they cannot even find time to answer Parliamentary questions put to them by Members of this House in relation to matters of considerable public importance. A few minutes ago we had the further spectacle of these same Under-Secretaries trying to rush through the Second Heading of these Bills without one word of discussion. This Bill would have gone through without a word if I had not intervened on the Bill that preceded it and secured from the Minister in charge some statement as to what the Bill contains. That is all the more serious by reason of the fact that these Bills were introduced by the Government without one single word of explanation or discussion on the First Reading. A case has been made out by my hon. Friend who moved the rejection of this Bill, and I would like to reinforce that case by asking the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill a few questions. It is true he gave us an explanation of this Bill, but he had not very much, if anything, to say about its application to Ireland. The circumstances in this country and in Ireland with regard to this Bill are very dissimilar.

This Bill deals mainly with agriculture. What does the Under-Secretary who explained this Bill in a few words know about agriculture? Why is not the Minister for Agriculture or his Under-Secretary here? Why is not the Chief Secretary for Ireland here to explain to the House a question which Irish Members may well bring up in considering a Bill of this kind? I do not think it is treating the House of Commons with respect that he should be absent, if I might use the phrase that was quoted at Question Time to-day. Only for the fact that the Speaker rebuked its use, I might almost say that it was an abuse of the procedure of the House of Commons. Has the Under-Secretary approached the Irish Department of Agriculture and consulted them, before bringing forward this Bill and including Ire- land, as to what its effect is to be in that country? If he has consulted them, what have they said? Has he consulted the Irish Insurance Commissioners and what attitude have they adopted upon this method? Perhaps they are too busy with other things, including a brand new scheme of stuffing the insurance offices in Dublin with some of their own nominees, in which they are supported by the Government and by the Under-Secretary, to pay attention to a mere trifle of this kind which concerns vitally the whole future of the National Insurance Commission and the National Insurance Act in Ireland. We are told that this is a War measure. We know perfectly well that while a need has arisen in Great Britain for the substitution of labour in agriculture on account of the Military Service Act, and while I am not going as an Irish Member to interfere in English or Scottish domestic affairs in matters of that kind, that case cannot be made out for Ireland at all. I think that we are entitled to say that until we have some explanation of the future effect of the Bill upon Ireland if it becomes law, if there is nobody here to speak for the Government of Ireland, we have a right to expect that the Second Reading of the Bill be not further proceeded with now.

Mr. T. WILSON

I quite understand the protest made by representatives from Ireland, but I do hope that they will not press that protest to a Division. The last speaker admits that as far as Ireland is concerned the Bill would to a very small extent affect the agricultural workers there. It does to a large extent affect those people who are at work upon the land in England.

Mr. HAZLETON

If the hon. Member will excuse me, I did not say that the Bill would not affect Ireland considerably. I said that the need for it in Ireland is very small, but that the effect will be very large.

9.0 P.M.

Mr. WILSON

The effect will not be great in Ireland. It cannot be great. In this country it will affect a very large number of people who are substitutes for people who are in the Army. But in Ireland it will not have this effect. This Bill, I take it for granted, will apply to women who are working on the land. There is quite a large number of women in this country working on the land to take the place of men. I do know from personal knowledge that there is a large number of men and women in this country who have gone to work on the land and wish to be exempted from the operation of the Insurance Act. There is quite a large number of people working on the land who have incomes of from £200 a year to £10,000 a year, and who, therefore, have no need to come under the Act. I know two Members of this House who are putting in as much of their spare time as they possibly can in digging potatoes. These men, in present circumstances, will be compelled to contribute under the Insurance Act, and I do not know whether they could claim any benefit on account of their income. But I do say that there is a demand from workers in this country that they should be exempted from the Insurance Act. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to carry the matter still further, and to make provision for exempting certain people from the unemployment provisions of the Insurance Act. Very strong representation has been made by trade unionists for further exemption in this direction at the present time. But as far as this small Bill is concerned, the object is useful and will commend itself unanimously, I believe, to those people who have taken the place of men on the land who have joined the Army. Therefore I hope that the opposition will be withdrawn. I quite appreciate the reasons for moving the rejection of the Bill. Every opportunity should be taken of protesting against any wrong action on the part of those responsible for administering the Insurance Act, but at the same time, on behalf of the English workers on the land who have taken the place of workers who have joined the Army, I do appeal to hon. Members to give the Bill a Second Reading and to amend it in Committee if they possibly can.

Mr. COOTE

As representing an agricultural constituency in Ireland, I trust that hon. Members below the Gangway will reconsider their opposition, and will agree to this Bill receiving a Second Reading with the unanimous support of the House. I speak on behalf of the labouring classes on the land in Ireland—at least, in the part of Ireland with which I am connected—and also on behalf of the farmer. This Bill will confer considerable benefit both on employers and employed. There is a class of migratory labour, working one or two days in one place and some days in another place, perhaps at some other business, and people of this class feel very much having to pay under the Insurance Act. If Irish agricultural labourers were allowed to choose, I question if they would agree to go in for the benefits of this Insurance Act at all. The Irish people, the employers and employed in agriculture, have never taken kindly to the Act. That is my impression —I may be wrong—and as this Bill, will ease the conditions of the Act it will be received with very great pleasure in the part of Ireland to which I belong.

Mr. ROBERTS

I should be glad to consider the question as it affects Ireland, and I have been asked whether the Irish Commissioners have been consulted on the matter. It has been before the Joint Committee on which the Irish Commission is represented, and I have been assured that this measure has a very limited reference to Ireland, and probably would have very little effect there. Therefore, no great objection was anticipated so far as Ireland is concerned. I have not consulted the Irish Board of Agriculture, but the name of the Secretary of the Board of Agriculture is on the back of this Bill. In regard to the Irish Department, I regarded this Bill as having a very limited application to Ireland. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why not include Ireland?"] If it is desired in Ireland that there should be none of these special Orders in that country, that wish and that desire could be met. It should be recollected that the measure is limited to cases of substitution in the place of men who have enlisted, or are absent through other circumstances of the War. When the Bill reaches Committee it will be open to hon. Members to move Amendments with the object of excluding Ireland from the measure, and I think, under the circumstances, that would meet the case which has been put.

Mr. T. M. HEALY

If the work of agricultural labourers be so desirable, why should any agricultural labourer be exempted from benefit? Can any answer be given to that question? Four or five years ago the Government came down to this House and said it was absolutely essential that every man and woman engaged in labour in this country should be insured. The insured man goes to some other employment on the land, and up to that moment it had been absolutely essential that his employer should pay benefit for him and that he himself should pay for benefit. But now, I understand, should he become engaged in agriculture because of the War, he is to be exempted from insurance and loses all benefit. Supposing he becomes sick, will he get any benefit? Supposing a man meets with an accident when employed under the special circumstances of this Act, will he gain benefit or lose benefit? I ask an answer to that question.

Mr. ROBERTS

I think the hon. Member was not here when I made my observations.

Mr. HEALY

I saw your name on the tape and I came in immediately.

Mr. ROBERTS

This Bill does not apply to persons of the class the hon. Member has in mind, namely, the person already insured in some way or other; and if such a person goes temporarily into agriculture he would not be excepted under this Bill. but would remain insured. The Bill only deals with persons not of a normally insurable class. The man in the mind of the hon. Member would receive his benefit in the ordinary way.

Mr. HEALY

If the person were insured before he took agricultural work, he would get benefit. Is that right?

Mr. ROBERTS

Yes.

Mr. HEALY

On the other hand, if you take the man who was not of an insurable class, what would be his position under this Bill? The man insured before going into agricultural employment would still get benefit, and this Bill does not apply to that man at all, and he gets his benefit. It only attempts to exempt the man who never was insured, and the number affected would be an extremely small class of persons, for I understand that the main Act is of almost universal application. Therefore it seems to be this, that for the purpose of the War the farmer who employs a particular class of man is exempted from making any payment. That seems to be an extraordinary policy, because it would enable the farmer, in the case of two men applying, to ask the first, "Have you been insured before," and if the man has, the farmer would say, "You are all right." But the unfortunate applicant who belongs to the class who is not insurable according to the hon. Gentleman would not be taker) on at all. The Government are rushing this proposal, which is not, I think, quite sufficiently understood, and I submit the real object of this measure has not been thoroughly considered. I am not going to oppose the Bill because it will exempt from insurance, and, if there is exemption, I see no objection to it so far as it goes.

Amendment negatived.

Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow.—[Mr. Gulland.]