Letters and Papers Concerning the Trans-Persian Railway and Other Railways in Persia [‎130v] (260/442)

1881 Oral Answers. HOUSE OF
COMMONS Oral Answers. 1882
[Mr. Cooper.]
neering tr?*des without giving manufac
turers at least twelve months’ notice, it is
a contravention of that pledge to include
casters of harness furniture, stirrups,
spurs, bits, buckles, watchguard fittings,
bag furniture, and spring hooks 1
The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of
TRADE ( Mr. Buxton): My right hon.
Friend has asked me to reply to this ques
tion. There has been no extension of
Part II. of the Act. The trades scheduled
specifically include ironfounding, and any
question as to what occupations are in
cluded under that heading is one which
under the Act has to be decided not by the
Board of Trade, but by the independent
Umpire appointed by the Crown. I
understand, by decision Xo. 62, published
in the “Board of Trade Journal” for 13th
June, the Umpire has decided that work
men employed in a malleable iron foundry
as moulders, core-makers, annealers,
dressers, and general labourers are in
cluded under ironfounding, and conse
quently liable to contribute under this
part of the Act, and I have no power to
interfere with the decision.
Mr. COOPER: Will the right hon.
Gentleman say whether the term' iron
foundings for the purposes of the Act in
cludes all castings in iron of whatever
form or description, and whether such in
terpretation is in accordance with the pro
vision of Part II. of the Act
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member
should give notice of the question.
Unpaid Shop Attendants.
11. Mr. HUNT asked the Chancellor of
the Exchequer whether in the case of a
man growing fruit on his own land near
the town, whilst his wife and daughter
attend in the shop without wages, his wife
and daughter will come under the
National Insurance Act; and, if not,
whether the man will have to pay the em
ployer’s contribution for his wife and
daughter l
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the
TREASURY (Mr. Masterman): A wife em
ployed by her husband is definitely ex
cluded by the terras of the Act, and a
daughter who receives no money payment
is not required to be insured. The last
part of the question does not therefore
arise.
Non-compliance with Rules (Penalty).
12. Mr. HUNT asked the Chancellor of
the Exchequer whether in the case of
employers or employed people refusing to
comply with the rules of the National
Insurance Act, magistrates will be com
pelled to impose the maximum fine of £10,
or could they reduce it to Is. or less?
Mr. MASTERMAN: The sum of £10 is
the maximum amount of the fine, and a
Court of Summary Jurisdiction has power
to impose as a fine any sum not exceeding
£ 10 .
Mr. HUNT: Can the right hon. Gentle
man say why it is that people are to be
fined up to £10 under the National Insur
ance Act, while passive resisters under the
Elementary Education Act are not fined
at all?
Key and Lock-Making.
33. Mr. COOPER asked on what grounds
the maker of a lock is excluded from
Part II. o'f the National Insurance Act,
whilst the maker of the key is included ?
Mr. BUXTON : The making of both keys
and locks would appear to fall outside the
scope of the insured trades, except as
regards w r orkmen employed in moulding
and casting malleable iron for key blanks,
which appears to be included under iron
founding, one of the trades specified in the
Sixth Schedule to the Act.
Approved Societies.
34. Mr. LUNDON asked the Secretary
to the Treasury whether he proposes to
take any steps to prevent assurance socie
ties which have been defrauding the
public during the past five years, and
whose doings have several times been
brought before this House as well as be
fore the Attorney-General, from operating
as approved societies for the purposes of
the Natonal Insurance Act; and, having
regard to the fact that the persons who
successfully pioneered some of these socie-
tes without any capital whatever and were
rewarded by handsome salaries from the
deposits of the shareholders, are the indi
viduals who are now connected with the
approved societies formed in connection
with these bogus companies, will inquiry
be made with a view to the protection
of the workers and the withdrawal of ap
proval, if proof such as that mentioned in
the question can be obtained ?
36 and 37. Mr. GIN NELL asked (36)
when the London and Provincial Yearly
Dividing Friendly Society, State Section,