NATIONAL INSURANCE.
[To THE EDITOR OF THE °SPECTATOR:1 SIR,—My attention has been called to a letter signed " Examiner " in your issue of April 27th. When the Spectator is constrained to publish under " Correspondence " something which was obviously intended by the writer as a review, one can only surmise that you are afraid of taking responsibility for that which you are not ashamed to print. But surely this subterfuge is unnecessary you must know the characteristics of a Middlesex Special Jury too well to fear a libel action in which the plaintiff might be convicted, or even suspected, of holding Liberal opinions. To show that your reviewer is not strictly impartial, perhaps I may quote some words written of our treatise on "National Insurance " by an opponent of the Act as zealous as, and possibly not less distinguished than, your anonymous " corre- spondent," Sir Edward Brabrook, ex-Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies.
"A cynic might suggest that the learned authors were emulating the haste of the Legislature by bringing out thus early a volume of more than 600 pages on an Act which only became law on December 18th last ; but such a suggestion would be un]just. The book is an excellent piece of work, and reflects groat credit on the industry and insight of the authors."
Now, may I answer your correspondent's question, dis- courteously though it is expressed P He is entirely mistaken in supposing that it is in any way a condition precedent to the liability of an employer to pay contributions that the workman should present a card to be stamped. There is no liability under Part I. of the Act upon the workman to obtain a card, to present it to his employer, or to take any other step whatever with regard to the payment of contributions. No gaols will therefore be required to accommodate workmen, because they cannot be defaulters. The liability is upon the employer to pay the contribution [s. 4 (2)], at such times [s. 4 (1)], and in such manner (s. 7) as the regulations may prescribe. If the workman has no card it will be the duty of the employer to get one for him, or otherwise to pay the contribution in accordance with the regulations, I would point out that, in addition to criminal proceedings under s. 69, an employer who fails or neglects to pay contributions runs the perhaps more serious risk under s. 70 of making himself liable for the payment to any employee who is a member of an approved society of any benefit, e.g., 5s. a. week up to the age of seventy in permanent disablement, of which the employee may have been deprived by such non- payment. We have not anticipated the possibility of local authorities declining to nominate representatives on the Insur- ance Committee because it is too absurdly remote. The answer to your correspondent's question is the same In their case as in that of the doctors—the working of the Act would proceed without them.—I am, Sir, &c., 1 Temple Gardens, Temple, E.C. A. S. COMYKS CARR.
Previous page
