Skip to main content

National Insurance Act

Volume 65: debated on Tuesday 21 July 1914

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

Approved Societies (Valuation)


asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer, respecting approved societies with less than 5,000 members, what is their position with regard to valuation in cases where they have been unable to join with other small societies to reach the number named in the National Insurance Act?

I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on the 7th July to the hon. Member for North-West Manchester.

Medical Attendance


asked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East, as representing the Insurance Commissioners, whether he is aware that Miss Ruby Holt, of 191, Church Gardens, Ealing, made and forwarded an application on 1st June last to make her own arrangements for medical attendance, which application was refused; whether he is aware that the patient has been attended by Dr. Bennett, of Ealing, who has been the medical attendant of every member of her family for many years past, and in particular has attended the applicant since her childhood; for what reason and under and in pursuance of what Regulation has Miss Holt's request been refused?

The circumstances of the application are in substance as stated. As I have already said in a previous reply to the hon. Member, the discretion to allow such applications for special arrangements rests in each case with the insurance committee.

Does the hon. Member not think that in a case of this sort the application ought to be granted without question or discussion?

Very well. If the discretion is with the committee, ought it not to be exercised in a case such as is raised in the question?

I have no doubt the committee will act in accordance with the instructions given to the committee by the decision of this House.


asked the hon. Member for St. George's-in-the-East whether he will state the reason why the Middlesex insurance committee has neglected to pay Dr. J. Chambré, of South Ealing, the agreed sum payable for his attendance upon twenty-nine insured persons, being members of the District Railway staff resident in Ealing in respect to the year 1913; whether such attendance was given in pursuance of an arrangement made between the committee and Dr. Chambré; and whether full particulars of the claim have been before the insurance committee for some months past?

The insured persons in question had been permitted by the insurance committee to make their own arrangements with the doctor referred to, and, as the hon. Member has already been informed, the dividends payable out of the Special Arrangements Fund to persons making their own arrangements could not be calculated until the accounts of all such persons had been received.

Board Of Trade Inspector (Disputed Statements)


asked the President of the Board of Trade if, owing to the uncorroborated and disputed statements made by a Board of Trade inspector, the Bristol magistrates on 9th July last dismissed a summons taken out against an employer by the Board of Trade under Part II. of the National Insurance Act; and, if so, what steps are being taken to ascertain if this inspector gave false evidence?

I assume the hon. Member refers to the case of the Llewellin Machine Company, who were recently convicted and fined for failure to pay contributions under Part II. of the Act. The summons which had been taken out at the same time against the company for making false representations with a view to avoiding such payment was dismissed by the magistrates, with the following comment (as reported):—

"With regard to the summons under Section 101, we do not think that the evidence of. Mr. Bayliss is corroborated sufficiently to find defendant guilty, seeing that the Act provides imprisonment in the first instance for this offence. Consequently, the magistrates must have corroborative evidence of the statement on which they are called upon to act."
I am not aware that there is any ground for the suggestion that the inspecting officer in question gave false evidence.

Insurance Commission (Ireland)


asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the number of assistant clerks, new class, employed in the National Health Insurance Commission (Ireland), the number who entered the class by competitive examination and by promotion from un-established classes, respectively, together with the number promoted to the rank of supervising assistant clerks from both these classes?

Forty-seven of the fifty-one officers in the class referred to at present employed by the Irish Insurance Commissioners, and three of the five who have been promoted to supervising posts, entered the class by competitive examination.