Skip to main content

Lion Tamers

Volume 65: debated on Tuesday 28 July 1914

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

62.

asked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, if the Insurance Commissioners have decided that lion tamers must be insured but that onion peelers need not be; if he can state the grounds on which this distinction is drawn; and if, in view of the absence of a considered and rational policy in determining as to the liability of different classes of workers to be insured, he will consider as to appointing a Committee of experts to deal with this question?

Employment as an onion peeler has been specified in a special Order as a subsidiary employment, and contributions are not required to be paid in respect of persons so employed, if they are not already insured persons. No Order has been made with regard to employment as a lion tamer.

May I ask the hon. Gentleman if the Insurance Commissioners did not make a Regulation last year that lion tamers must be insured, and can he tell me what Regulation there is in regard to who shall or shall not be insured?

If a person is employed in contract service he is insurable, unless he is excepted under the second part of the Schedule.