§ Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked if the right hon. Gentleman will state whether, in his new proposals relating to the health insurance of agricultural labourers under the National Insurance Bill, he has incorporated the suggestion which he made to a deputation from the National Farmers' Union on 4th July that, if the employer would undertake to pay full wages to his labourers for the first six weeks of any illness, the sick benefit of 10s. per week should be paid over to the employer; or, alternatively, whether he has abandoned his original plan, as foreshadowed in his reply to the above deputation?
Mr. McKINNON WOODThe suggestion referred to was purely tentative. Farmers who hire their labourers for a period of six months certain will have two alternatives open to them under the Bill as proposed to be amended. The first is to pay a reduced contribution under the Amendment which my right hon. Friend has tabled and to remain under a liability for the sickness of their employés, which accords with present custom. The second is to pay the full contribution and to make what arrangements they choose with their employés as to the receipt of sick benefit.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTIs the report of the interview incorrect which appears in the organ of the National Farmers' Union to the effect that the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that "in the case of confined men where full wage was paid in the 1463 event of sickness he considered the State payment of 10s. per week should go to the employer?"
Mr. McKINNON WOODThat is not the present proposal, nor the proposal which appears in the Amendment.
Mr. McKINNON WOODI do not think it is possible to give two options. It is a question of the conditions of employment, and I do not think we could give an alternative option.