HC Deb 15 July 1929 vol 230 c55W
Mr. REMER

asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the employment of John William Close and James Wild as lamplighters and cleaners by the Disley Rural District Council and the letters which have been received from his Department by that council, dated 18th June, 1929, in which it is stated that the occupation is not insurable; and will he state the reasons for this decision?

Miss LAWRENCE

The decision to which the hon. Member refers was given formally under Section 89 of the National Health Insurance Act, 1924, and was to the effect that the men in question were excepted from insurance by reason of the special order relating to subsidiary employments made under the Act. Decisions under Section 89 are subject to appeal to the High Court on any question of law.

Mr. REMER

asked the Minister of Labour if her attention has been called to the employment of John William Close and James Wild as lamplighters and cleaners by the Disley Rural District Council, and the letters which have been received from her Department by that council, dated 18th June, 1929, in which it is stated that the occupation is only part-time employment; and will she state the reason for this decision?

Mr. LAWSON

The decisions to which the hon. Member refers were formal decisions given under Section 10 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1920, to the effect that the employment of Mr. Close and Mr. Wild was excepted employment. The employment was held to come within the Subsidiary Employments Special Order, 1925. Decisions given under Section 10 of the Act are subject to appeal to the High Court.

Forward to