HC Deb 12 February 1913 vol 48 cc928-30
29. Mr. F. HALL

asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been called to the remarks of the magistrate at Marlborough Street Police Court in regard to the prosecution of Gratze, Limited, engineers, for failing to pay the insurance contributions of certain workmen; if the Commissioners had declined to prosecute the workmen themselves, although they had refused to take the necessary action to comply with the National Insurance Act; if he is aware that the magistrate stated that the Commissioners had shown great partiality in the matter; that counsel representing the Commissioners had questioned the propriety of the magistrate's decision; and if steps will be taken in future to ensure that the Commissioners shall not victimise employers for the default of their servants?

Mr. MASTERMAN

My attention has been called to this case. It appeared in evidence that before proceedings were instituted Messrs. Gratze were given every opportunity of complying with the Act, but that their managing director, Mr. E. V. Gratze, informed the inspector that he had not the slightest intention of insuring his employés or of complying with the Act in any way. Mr. Gratze was himself a member of the council of a body calling itself the Insurance Tax Resisters' Defence Association, one of the declared objects of which is to "admit as members, employers who pledge themselves, not to work the Act," and to persuade others to do the same. In view of these facts the Commissioners felt that the responsibility for the non-payment of contributions in this case rested with the employers, and that in this case the employers must be held responsible for contributions not having been paid. I may add that it is the duty of an employer himself to obtain a card for the purposes of stamping where the employé omits to do so, and that neither Mr. Gratze nor any other person went into the witness box at the Police Court on behalf of the defendants.

Mr. F. HALL

Is not the statement made now the opposite to that of the magistrate? And would the right hon. Gentleman answer the last few lines of the question?

Mr. MASTERMAN

In the statement I have given the actual facts of the case. If an employer wishes to comply with the Act, and employés of that employer persistently resist, action will be taken by proceedings against the employés; but I am profoundly distrustful on some grounds of evidence, of statements made by employers who do not want to pay that it is because the employés do not want the benefits.

Mr. WILLIAM THORNE

In what position. will the worker be in case the employer refuses to pay his contributions, and the man when he falls sick is in consequence in arrear? What protection will he get?

Mr. MASTERMAN

He can sue the employer for damages; for the amount of money that he would have received if the employer had paid.

Mr. W. THORNE

Is it the duty of the Commissioners to prosecute in a case of the kind?

Mr. MASTERMAN

It is the duty of the Commissioners to prosecute to obtain the contributions from the employers, and because we have done it in this case we have been subjected to criticism.

Mr. LYELL

In view of the fact that the Act places the responsibility on the employer, is it not impossible for the Commissioners to victimise the employers for the default of their servants?

Mr. MASTERMAN

The Commissioners have to proceed for a definite specific violation of the Act against those employers who have not stamped the cards, which they are obliged to do under the Act quite apart from anything which the employés do.