§ 80. Mr. HAROLD SMITHasked the President of the Board of Trade whether an employer may be deprived of the refund under Section 94 (1) of the National Insurance Act, Part II., where the failure to employ the workman continuously for twelve months is due to the fact that the workman whose card had been stamped for forty-six weeks had incapacitated himself for work on one occasion through misconduct?
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Burns)It is one of the conditions imposed by the Section referred to that the workman should have been continuously in the employer's service through the prescribed period of twelve months. Each case where a workman is absent from work from any cause is considered on its merits, and I am unable to say without full details of the case whether the circumstances mentioned in the question would be regarded as breaking the continuity of service. I may add that the amending Bill which I have lately introduced proposes, among other things, to abolish the condition of continuous service, which gives rise to the difficulty to which the hon. Member draws attention.
§ Mr. HAROLD SMITHMay I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether under the Bill which he proposes to introduce the employer would have any opportunity of getting a rebate in the case of a man who 1092 has been continuously employed, or whether he is to be deprived of the benefit?
§ Mr. BURNSI would ask the hon. Member to see me at some other time, when I can explain to him the object of the Bill.