§ 62. Mr. GIBBS
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?
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. J. M. Robertson)
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.