§ 17. Sir J. D. REES
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether em- 1230 ployers are compelled to pay unemployment insurance in respect of men occupied in planing floor boards and not in respect of men handling such boards when planed in Norway; and, if so, what steps the Government propose to take to countervail this bounty in favour of the Norwegian exporter?
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Robertson)
The hon. Member's question has been referred to this Department. Workmen who plane boards for builders are insurable, and men employed by merchants who merely sell boards, whether imported or not, are not insurable under Part II. of the National Insurance Act. I do not think that this constitutes a bounty in favour of the Norwegian exporter.
§ Sir J. D. REES
There is an advantage, it is admitted; then what is the distinction between an "advantage" and a "bounty"?
An advantage is one that might arise in regard to any one of the insured trades, and I am at a loss to understand why this trade is selected as implying anything special.