WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SILICOSIS) BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 23 July 1924)

§ EARL DE LA WARR
My Lords, this Bill follows on the Act of 1906, which extended the principle of workmen's compensation to industrial diseases. In 1918 there was an Act passed which dealt with this particular disease, silicosis, but it dealt with it quite apart from tuber- 940 culosis. At the time that this Act was passed it was realised that these two diseases are very difficult to separate, and it was recognised that this decision of Parliament would have to be made subject to review at a later date, after some practical experience. Accordingly, in 1923, Mr. Bridgeman, who was the then Home Secretary, appointed a Committee presided over by Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lamp-son, and they reported against the differentiation between the two diseases, that is to say, they altered the onus of proof. Whereas hitherto a man who had tuberculosis had to prove that he had got it through his having silicosis, the onus of proof was reversed.
At the same time, the Committee thought proper to insert certain safeguards. The first was that power should be given to suspend workmen suffering from tuberculosis apart from silicosis. The second was that a definite standard of physique should be required in all workmen engaged in the industry, and the third that the present arrangements for the medical examination of workmen, which had not hitherto proved altogether satisfactory, should be strengthened by the appointment of a medical board, which would take over most of the duties under the scheme at present carried out with the consent of local tuberculosis authorities. The proposals which the Bill seeks to carry out should prove advantageous both to employers and to employees. They have been generally accepted, and are only awaiting the passing of this Bill into law to enable them to be embodied in an amending scheme. In these circumstances it is hoped that this Bill will be accepted as an agreed measure.

§ LORD STUART OF WORTLEY
My Lords, I do not rise to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill, for, after all, its object is a humane one. I only wish to observe that personally I had not become aware of the existence of the Report of this Departmental Committee. I do not think that was my fault, because there is something very domestic about this Report. It has no reference number, and I have never seen a copy. It is dated 1924, and it must be tolerably recent. It is very unusual for these Reports to be issued without some means of identifica- 941 tion by which you can trace them in the literature which refers to the subject. Apart from that, which is only a detail, I should like to ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether proper consultation has been held with those engaged in this very necessary and important trade, as to the cost of this further charge upon the industry. It is right that, in furtherance of the policy which was initiated by Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, workmen's compensation should be a charge upon industry. But it is not altogether right that diseases not traceable to the industry itself should similarly be charged as if they were produced by the industry. No doubt this Committee have done their best to make proper distinctions, but still we know that there is a tendency sometimes among professional examiners to think that where a large industry exists, employing a large amount of labour, those engaged in it may have a bottomless purse upon which almost anything can be charged. That, of course, nobody would wish, and I only desire to ask the noble Earl whether, either as witnesses before this Departmental Committee, or in conference or consultation of some other kind, those engaged as employers in this industry have had the opportunity of expressing their views.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW
My Lords, I am glad to see that my noble friend has again produced a Bill embodying the recommendations of a Committee which was appointed by the late Government, the first chairman of which was Colonel Stanley, and the second Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson, both of them being Under-Secretaries at the Home Office. The inquiry was a considerable one, and, after a large number of witnesses had been examined, an exhaustive Report was produced. I do not think it has been circulated, but, by the kindness of the Home Office, I have been able to see a copy of it. I think that the Bill embodies the main recommendations of that Report, and that there is no matter which I should wish to criticise in its provisions. I shall be very glad to support my noble friend.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
My Lords, I think I can answer Lord Stuart of Wortley. Owing to an inadequate medical view, the two diseases were 942 separated. Silica is a very hard mineral, and when it gets into the glands it causes a state of things which passes very easily into tuberculosis. It predisposes to infection by the. tubercle bacillus. What was done before was to treat silicosis as being a sort of disease in itself, separable from tuberculosis. Now, it is not so separable. When it occur", and when tuberculosis occurs with it, they are really one disease, and we are not adding to the burden on the employer in any substantial way, because he is already liable for compensation for silicosis, and the tuberculosis is practically indistinguishable. It is a matter which requires close scientific investigation, because in the case of a softer mineral, coal dust, the coal dust does not predispose the miner to tuberculosis. It is only a hard mineral, like silica, which has the special quality, and there are several other minerals which have the same effect