§ 38. Sir HENRY CAUTLEYasked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that in the case of a man at Forest Row, Sussex, it has been decided that an agricultural worker who employs and works with two or three other agricultural workers in the woods in winter in cutting wood for firewood, pea boughs and bean sticks, and for besoms for path sweeping, which he makes in the bad weather, and in the season similarly works grass cutting, hay making, and market and other gardening, is liable for unemployment contributions in respect of the men so employed; that such a charge is impossible out of profits, which barely exceed the wage of an agricultural labourer, and means the extinction of this village industry; and whether he will take some steps, whether legislative or otherwise, to preserve this and similar surviving village industries?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton)I have been asked to reply. As my hon. Friend is aware, I inquired into this case a short time ago, and on the facts then reported it seemed clear that for the main part of the work unemployment insurance contributions are payable. In order, however, to make sure that the facts have been fully ascertained, I will make further inquiry and consider the matter again.
§ Sir H. CAUTLEYI am obliged to the hon. Member. Does he also realise that the bulk of this work is done in the woods not under cover, that the earnings of the employer are only those of an agricultural worker, that he is really only a nominal employer, and that this village industry must perish if these charges are laid upon it.
§ Mr. BETTERTONYes, Sir. These are exactly the points to which I have referred and upon which I want further information. Of course, my hon. and learned Friend will realise that what we have to consider is whether or not this particular occupation comes within the definition of those occupations, such as agriculture or forestry, which are exempted under the Act.