Letters and Papers Concerning the Trans-Persian Railway and Other Railways in Persia [‎132r] (263/442)

1887
Oral Answers.
1888
10 July 1912
Oral Answers.
Mr. MASTERMAN: What benefit—the
medical benefit 1 ?
Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON : Sana
torium benefit.
Mr. MASTERMAN : I could not say what
steps have to be taken immediately by the
insured person without notice, but if the
hon. Gentleman will give me notice I will
inquire.
Mr. G. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Is the
contract between the Government and the
insured person or between the insured
persons and the society?
Mr. MASTERMAN : I think the contract
is between the society and the insured
person.
59. Str CLEMENT Kl N LOCH-COOKE
asked on what grounds the official ex
planatory leaflet No. 21, published by the
National Health Insurance Commission,
states that a weekly contribution of 6d. is
payable by mistresses for each week be
ginning on Monday during the whole or
any part of which the servant has been
employed, having regard to the fact that
it is laid down in the Act that the servant
is to pay 3d. and the employer 3d. ?
Mr. MASTERMAN : The leaflet states
that “ a weekly contribution of 6d. is pay
able by the mistress,” and that the mis
tress “has a right to deduct 3d. from the
servant’s w'ages.” If the hon. and gallant
Member will refer to Section 4 (2) of the
Act, or to my answers to the hon. Mem
bers for Wilton and Devizes on 11th June
and 8th July, in which that Section is
quoted, he will see that the leaflet ex
presses exactly the effect of the law, which
entitles, but does not compel, the mistress
to make deductions from her servant’s
w'ages.
SirC. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does not the
right hon. Gentleman say that the mistress
is obliged to pay sixpence when he knows
that she is only obliged to pay threepence ?
Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is
now arguing.
60. Sir CLEMENT KINLOCH-COOKE
asked the Secretary to the Treasury
w'hether his attention has been called to
the official explanatory leaflet, No. 21, of
the National Health Insurance Commis
sion, in which it is stated that every per
son in domestic service, unless entitled to
an exemption, mus& get a contribution
card before 15th July, either from an ap
proved society of which she is a member
or from any post office; and that every
mistress, if the servant fails to produce a
card, must obtain an ordinary card or an
emergency card from the post office on or
before pay day; whether these statements
are in conflict, seeing that under the
National Insurance Act penalties are to
be inflicted for breach of its provisions and
that there is no provision in the Act en
forcing these requirements; will he say
whether it is the servant or the mistress
■ who will be brought before the Police
Court and fined; and whether there is any
Section in the Act requiring the mistress
to purchase, under penalty, cards for ser
vants in her husband’s employment ?
Mr. MASTERMAN : Under Section 69
(2) of the Act, an employer or other person
who is guilty of contravention of, or non-
compliance with, any of the requirements,
either of Part I. of the Act or of the
regulations made thereunder, is liable to
a penalty. Neglect on the part of an
employe to pay a contribution, and neglect
on the part of an insured person to obtain
a card, would be two distinct offences com
mitted by two different people. What
action would be taken by the Commis
sioners in any particular case would
depend on the circumstances of that case;
but I may point out that the failure of a
servant to obtain a card does not relieve
the mistress of the duty of paying the
contribution or add to the difficulty of per
forming that duty. Mistresses are not
required, as suggested in the question, to
“purchase” cards. They can obtain
either emergency cards or ordinary cards
free of cost at any post office, and are
thus enabled to discharge their statutory
duty of paying the contribution when the
occasion arises.
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Does not
the right hon. Gentleman know that it is
a well-known principle of law that you
cannot proceed against two persons for
the same offence ?
Mr. MASTERMAN : I do not know of
that principle; but, in any case, I was not
suggesting that we would proceed against
two persons.
Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: You had it
in this pamphlet.
t
Mr. J. H. THOMAS: May I ask if it
would be a contravention of the Act for
an employer to give notice that unless his
employes, young women, are prepared to