§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether, in the event of a servant electing to leave her situation on account of 1391 illness and being away for a month, the employer will be compelled, under the National Insurance Bill, to pay her a month's wages during her illness as well as the wages of the person who takes her place?
Mr. McKINNON WOODThe answer is that there is nothing in the Insurance Bill that affects the existing law on this subject.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether the weekly payment of 7s. 6d. in the case of illness will be paid to a female servant if she elects to receive sickness benefits, whether she is in hospital, an infirmary, or at the house where she is employed? whether she will be free to do as she likes with the 7s. 6d., or must she hand it over to the hospital, the infirmary, or the head of the house in which she is employed; will he explain what is meant by payment of the 7s. 6d. to dependents of the insured person, under what circumstances will this transfer take place, and do dependents mean legal dependents or voluntary dependents; and who is to decide in what proportion the money should be allocated and to whom it should be given?
Mr. McKINNON WOODI will refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave on Monday to the hon. Member for Ludlow. The money will not be paid to her if she is in hospital or an infirmary, but it will be so paid if she is in her employer's home, and she will be under no obligation to pay it over to her employer. The circumstances in which the money will be payable to dependents were explained in the answer to which I have just referred. The question whether a person is dependent is a question of fact to be determined by the society or Commissioners administering the benefit. The decision as to the last part of the question will rest with such society or committee after consultation, if possible, with the insured person.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKESurely the right hon. Gentleman is in a position to say whether the dependents are to be legal dependents or voluntary dependents?
Mr. McKINNON WOODI have already said to the hon. Member that it will be for the friendly society to say whether they are in the proper sense dependents. There is no such limitation in the Bill.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEasked whether a domestic servant threatened 1392 with blindness, after paying her contributions to an approved society under the National Insurance Bill, will be entitled when she becomes blind to 7s. 6d. for twenty-six weeks, and afterwards 5s. weekly till qualified for an old age pension while she continues to be given a home free of cost in her mistress's house, or must that servant, in order to gain the necessary qualification, be turned out by her mistress when she becomes blind and unable to work?
Mr. McKINNON WOODThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the latter in the negative. The erroneous statement that it is necessary that a servant should be "turned out by her mistress" before she can receive benefits has been corrected many times.
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEI never asked anything about servants being turned out of the house by mistresses. What I asked the right hon. Gentleman was a plain and straightforward question, and are we not entitled to a plain and straightforward answer?
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKENo, I have not.
Mr. McKINNON WOODThe last words of that question are, "or must that servant, in order to gain the necessary qualification, be turned out by her mistress."
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEThe last part is dependent upon the first part of the question. This is not a hypothetical question. It is an absolute instance. Are we to understand that we are not entitled to ask questions to be answered by the right hon. Gentleman?
Mr. McKINNON WOODThe hon. Member seems to have forgotten the first part of my answer. It was, "The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative."
§ Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKEYes, and if you had stopped there it would have been all right.