§ Sir J. Lambasked the Attorney-General whether he is aware of a recent decision by the Court of Appeal in the case of Mr. Prinst Marrison versus Mr. John Bell, under which an employer, in order to protect himself against the liability to pay wages during the illness of an employé who is in receipt of health insurance benefit, and also to pay at the same time double wages by the provision of a substitute to do the work of the sick man, will be compelled to give the man formal notice to terminate his engagement; and, as this action would be repugnant to employers as causing extra anxiety, by reason of losing his employment, to the worker during his illness, will he take steps to remove this necessity by bringing the law in conformity with the principle of the Workmen's Compensation Act during the period of incapacity, or in some other manner?
§ Mr. ElliotI have been asked to reply. I am aware of the decision of the Court of Appeal in the case to which my hon. Friend refers. I would, however, point out that there is a clear distinction between the benefits payable under the Health Insurance Acts and compensation payable under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. The provisions of the Health Insurance Acts in no way modify the terms of a worker's contract of service and the rates of benefit payable under the Acts are in no way related to the wages received, whereas the Workmen's Compensation Acts are treated as introducing a modification of the worker's contract of service, with the effect that the workman in receipt of compensation cannot claim full wages in respect of the same period. I do not think that any amendment of law is necessary, since the decision does2372W not preclude the inclusion in the terms of a contract of employment of express provisions enabling an employer to make deductions from wages during periods when the employé is absent from work owing to sickness.