§ Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment proposed (4th December) on consideration of the Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee).
§
Which Amendment was—
In page 8, line 15, to leave out the word 'fishing.'"—(Sir Robert Robert.)
§ Question again proposed, "That the word 'fishing' stand part of the Bill.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ MR. BARNES (Glasgow, Blackfriars) moved an Amendment, the acceptance of which would make Clause 8 read: "the certifying surgeon appointed under the Factory and Workshops Act, 1901, for the district in which the workman is employed, or other duly qualified medical practitioner, certifies that a workman," etc. It might seem out of place to suggest the supersedence by an ordinary medical practitioner of a gentleman who by his appointment was practically a Government official. But unfortunately, so he was told, the people in the district in which the particular section of the Act would operate had not the fullest confidence in the certifying surgeon, and 975 therefore there should be some option to call in another doctor. If a man suffering from an industrial disease wished to claim benefit under the Act he had no power to go to his own doctor, but he had to accept the offices of the certifying surgeon, and then in the event of his not being satisfied he had to go before the medical referee, whose decision was final. Such an arrangement was not so fair to the man as it was to the employer, and for this reason he moved the Amendment. He also pointed out that the Amendment was linked up to a certain extent with another Amendment more fundamental in character where it was proposed to open up benefits under the Act, not only to those persons within the third schedule but to anyone suffering from industrial diseases. He wished the House to have regard to the fact that this Amendment had a bearing on the second Amendment, and therefore it was important.
§ MR. J. WARD (Stoke on-Trent), in seconding, said he had attended meetings where the subject under discussion had been that of diseases in trades, and the question had been considered jointly by both employers and workmen. He thought hon. Members would agree that there was a considerable amount of argument in favour of allowing the surgeon who was usually in attendance upon a man, who understood the way in which the disease had grown, knew the general state of the man's health and the way it had been undermined, to have some voice in the matter. Such practitioner must know quite as much of the circumstances as the man who had only been called in for half an hour to make an examination of the subject. If the certifying surgeon refused to grant a certificate, or the certificate was not satisfactory, automatically the medical! referee was to be referred to, and his decision was final. There was no method of appealing, so far as he understood it. Was that not a dangerous power to put in the hands of these gentlemen? Even amongst the greatest of our medical authorities there was often a considerable difference of opinion in regard to medical and surgical cases, and under these circumstances he thought there should be some other method of deciding the 976 case, instead of its being left to two individuals who, under the present regulations, and, so far as the Act applied to one of them at least, might be partially in the service of the employer.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 8, line 21, after the word 'employed, to insert the words 'or other duly qualified medical practitioner.'"—(Mr. Barnes.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ * THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL, Yorkshire, Cleveland)said the only question to be referred to the certifying surgeon was the medical one of whether or not a man was suffering from a disease. Such questions as to whether the disease arose from his employment and all other matters that might arise under the Act were not to be referred to him. It was purely a question of the diagnosing of disease, and the Government thought that, it being a medical question, it ought to be referred to a medical man. Once a certificate was obtained the man could claim compensation as an absolute right unless the employer proved that the disease was not contracted in his employment. If the Amendment were inserted the result would be that every case would have to be taken into Court, which the Government desired to avoid; for of course the certificate of the workman's own doctor could not be regarded as carrying any official authority. There must be some outside authority easily accessible who would be able to say whether or not a man was suffering from an industrial disease. The certifying surgeon became an expert, and was by far the most qualified man for the purpose. He agreed with the hon. Member for Stoke that there ought to be an opportunity for the workman's doctor, who, no doubt, knew the case, to state his views, and he thought the Government could undertake that in every case the medical referee should be instructed to give an opportunity for such medical evidence to be laid before him.
§ MR. BARNESasked who would have to pay the expense.
§ MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid of course if a man's own doctor attended before the medical referee the man would have to bear the expense. The medical referee's fee would involve no charge to the workman.
§ VISCOUNT MORPETH (Birmingham, S.)said that in the event of an Amendment lower on the Paper being accepted by the Government, a very heavy responsibility would be thrown upon the medical man who had to certify a workman to be suffering from an industrial disease. They were bound to recognise that there were some medical practitioners who issued certificates in a reckless manner, and there was a practical difficulty in dealing with that class of practitioner. If this clause was to be extended so as to apply to all classes of industrial disease, there would be some danger in allowing the private doctor of the workman who was aggrieved to be the authority to pronounce whether or not the workman in question was suffering from an industrial disease. He thought the surgeon appointed under the Factory and Workshop Act was in some sense a Government official, and was in a more impartial position than any qualified medical practitioner who might be called in. The Amendment asked rather too much in view of what was proposed later on.
§ MR. BARNEShaving regard to the statement of the Under-Secretary, asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. MASTERMAN (West Ham, N.) moved an Amendment to include all trades and processes within the scope of compensation for industrial diseases. He regretted the absence of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, who had made this subject his special study, and to whom all those who were working in the dangerous trades concerned should be exceedingly grateful. This was to him the most vital clause in the Bill, because it not merely developed and perfected the system of 1897, but laid down a new prin- 978 ciple in workmen's compensation. It had been branded as a leap in the dark, but so was the Bill of 1897, and he thought, considering the acquaintance they now possessed with industrial diseases, the House should be prepared to take this step. The result of the Amendment would be that instead of compensation for industrial disease applying to certain limited specified trades and processes it should apply to any disease which was due to the nature of the employment in which the workman was engaged, and which he could demonstrate was due to the nature of the employment. He knew there were great difficulties in this wide application, but the situation was, he apprehended, a difficult one apart from that. On the one hand the method of adding to the schedule seemed to him impossible for carrying out what they desired; and, on the other hand, there was enough information to create a desire to bring the victims of industrial disease within the scope of compensation. Two strong arguments had been verified in ten years experience for the extension of compensation in case of accident and its application to industrial diseases. One argument was that the extension would ensure greater care on the part of the master, though he agreed that their main hopes had not been secured in that direction and accidents had not materially diminished as a result of the Act of 1897. Still it was a very satisfactory second string to the bow of factory legislation. In regard to the argument that it was exceedingly difficult to extend compensation to industrial diseases, Mr. Legge, in giving evidence on the point, said that the difficulties of bringing lead poisoning under the Workmen's Compensation Act were almost insuperable, but that if it could be done it would have enormous effect in the improvement of work. Therefore he would ask why the schedule in this Bill was limited to lead poisoning and five other industrial diseases. They were convinced from experience that the general effect of industrial compensation was to raise wages, and it raised them according to the extent of the insurance. These dangerous processes, involving industrial disease to a very large extent, pointed to a curious 979 perversion of the so-called laws of political economy, because they were largely carried on by the poorest paid workers in the country, namely, women and girls who had no direct representation in this House. He believed that this proposal would raise the wages of these poor people to the extent of the amount of the insurance, and he and his friends were of opinion that the cost of insurance would be thrown upon the shoulders of the consumers. They had a right to demand that the first charge in connection with an industry which should be thrown upon the consumer was that which concerned the health and welfare of the workers in the trade. There were two methods of procedure, and the Government appeared to have chosen the least satisfactory of the two. They might proceed by the method which would be established if the Government accepted this Amendment. It might, of course, require some consequential Amendments, limiting its operation and making it clear that the disease for which compensation was to be paid was incidental to the special nature of the employment. He had given notice of a further Amendment which would exempt agriculture from the operation of the present Amendment, and the supporters of the Amendment would be willing to accept other limitations so long as the general principle they advocated was established. The Government method established a schedule consisting of six specially selected industrial diseases. One of them was anthrax, and the second was miners' worm. The third which dealt with lead was already partly provided for under the factory law, leaving mercury, phosphorus and arsenic poisoning as the industries to which this particular compensation would be extended. There were, he was aware, provisions for the extension of that schedule, but he was profoundly dissatisfied with the method suggested. The Secretary of State might make Provisional Orders for extending the provisions of this section to other diseases and processes, and such Orders would have no effect until confirmed by Parliament. Whilst the confirmation of the Order was pending, if a petition was presented against it, the Bill might be referred to a Select Committee, and the petitioners 980 would be allowed to oppose as in the case of Private Bills. Their experience in the past had shown how difficult it was to make any extensions under such a system as that. The Under-Secretary might reply that an important Home Office Committee had been appointed to deal with a long list of trades and processes, and that they were considering now far the list might be extended under the schedule. What would be the result? He would give as an illustration the girls working under the naphtha process in the manufacture of India rubber, which ten years ago was recommended as a dangerous trade, but which to-day was not so certified. Under the procedure now suggested the girls would have to get that trade put on the list for Home Office inquiry.
§ MR. GLADSTONEIt is on.
§ MR. MASTERMANsaid he was pleased to hear that, but it was not on when he looked through the list a short time ago. It would then have to be recommended, and the third stage would be the making of a Provisional Order, and the laying of it on the Table of the House. The fourth stage would be the petitions against being included under Schedule 3 by the particular employers; the fifth stage the recommendation of the petition to a Select Committee to inquire and report; and the sixth, the reference back to the House and the embracing of the recommendation in a Bill similar to a Private Bill. After passing through those six stages naphtha would be included as a disease for which compensation could be paid. The seventh stage was to get a surgeon to certify the disease; the eighth the challenging of that statement before a medical referee; and the ninth an appeal to the Court for compensation. Could those who were acquainted with the number of victims of this disease rest satisfied with such machinery as that? There was a Departmental Committee on Dangerous Trades in 1896 which, after three years of a most careful and exhaustive inquiry, produced a long list of trades which they recommended as dangerous, the great majority of which remained unregulated to this day. It 981 was with a strong desire that the Government would see their way to simplify the machinery of this provision that he ventured to press the Amendment. They recognised the difficulties. It was said that these diseases would be un-insurable, and that they could not be met by the ordinary methods adopted for the compensation of workmen. There was very little evidence to support such a statement, though there were a considerable number of authorities who believed that these cases would settle down to a regular system of insurance, but he did not think any system would be satisfactory until they got a universal system of State insurance. The manager of the Commercial Union Assurance Company in his evidence was asked as to the expense and difficulty of insuring against these diseases, and although he said it would be a difficult matter to bring them within the scope of the Act a large number of insurance companies would be willing to take up the system, and as their liabilities decreased with the greater care that would be taken in the dangerous trades, the premiums would be reduced. That was the main contention of the supporters of the Amendment. They were willing to accept the exemption of certain trades. They were ready to hear whether any kind of agreement could be arrived at which would make the position more satisfactory than the present very severely contested limitation, which was entirely insufficient to meet the demands made in the name of civilisation on behalf of the unfortunate people working in these special trades. This was no factious Amendment. It was not proposed with any desire to trouble the Government. It was an Amendment which went to the heart of one of the most difficult and pressing of all the modern problems of social legislation. it was desirable in the interest of certain workers in difficult and dangerous processes, largely women and girls, who were not represented in this House, and who had no power by vote of making their desires known. If they had had that power the application of the principle to their condition would have been accepted long ago by a very large majority. He and his friends did not pre- 982 tend that they were the only people who cared for this matter, but they submitted in the name of those workers that the contention which was often made that Members of the House of Commons were as prepared to look after the people's interests as the people were themselves might be justified in such a test ease as that which he was now presenting. He trusted that they might not be met by the simple statement that the Government had gone as far as they could go in the matter, and that they might be encouraged in connection with this particular Bill to hope that protection would be given to some of the most unfortunate classes in the community.
§ MR. BARNESin seconding the Amendment, said it proposed to exclude the third schedule, and as that schedule included cases of disease resulting from the processes employed in pottery he wished to be reassured that potters would not be excluded. He knew that there were some potters who looked with misgiving at the Amendment lest it should exclude them from the benefits of the Act. Nothing of the sort was intended by the Amendment, which, as a matter of fact, would exclude no one. All that it did was to provide that instead of the rather cumbersome, costly, and lengthy process incidental upon Government action there should be substituted the certificate of a duly qualified man appointed by the Home Office. It might be said that already a great deal had been done by enabling the Home Office to extend the Schedule. He recognised that that was a great advance, but although the Home Office might act with as much celerity as they possibly could in these cases he submitted that in the meanwhile scores and possibly hundreds of people would be sacrificed. This was what by the Amendment they wished to avoid. He wanted to emphasise what had been said by the mover of the Resolution as to its being proposed in the interests of the most helpless class of workers. He pleaded for those who had no voice in the matter, and who suffered constantly the terror of industrial disease.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 8, line 22, to leave out the words 'mentioned in the Third Schedule to this Act.'"—(Mr. Masterman.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUELassociated himself with the expression of regret at the absence of the hon. Member for Berwickshire, who had for a long time taken a deep interest in this subject. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment had asserted that the schedule of the diseases was too narrow and was inadequate. He was perfectly right. The Government had never suggested that it was anything but a provisional schedule. That had been made perfectly clear in the previous stages of the Bill, and many of those diseases which the hon. Member quoted ought undoubtedly to stand on the same footing as lead poisoning and others which were now inserted in the schedule. The reason why these particular diseases were included and others were not was that all these diseases, except one relating to mines, were already diseases mentioned in the Factory Acts as dangerous, and on which the Home Office received reports from all over the country, and the extent to which they were due to particular industries was absolutely certain. Therefore they could without further inquiry be put into the schedule of the Bill. When the Bill was introduced they were obliged, in framing the schedule, to place in it provisionally, and provisionally only, those diseases on which they had full information, but they took power to add to that schedule at any subsequent time. As soon as this clause of the Bill was sanctioned by the Committee his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department appointed a Committee to investigate those other diseases. He had the honour of being chairman of that Committee, and he had the advantage of the assistance of such distinguished medical men as Professor Clifford Albutt, Regius Professor of Physic at Cambridge; and Dr. Legge, medical inspector of factories; with Mr. 984 Cunynghame, of the Home Office, who was also well acquainted with these subjects. He regretted that his hon. friend the Member for Berwickshire did not accept an invitation to serve on that Committee. That Committee was appointed at the earliest possible moment; and since the summer holidays they had met usually twice a week and were now en-now engaged in investigating, among others, all the diseases which the hon. Gentleman had mentioned. They had a list of no fewer than thirty trade diseases for inquiry. They had invited trade unions through the Press and also through communication with their Parliamentary Committee to suggest any further diseases for investigation. The Committee were willing to investigate any diseases suggested by any Member of the House. Already they had heard evidence in regard to no fewer than fifteen of these cases. They had visited many of the chief industrial centres of England, and it was his hope and belief that they would be able to present their Report and to introduce the Provisional Order in time to enable it to be passed before this Act came into operation in July next year. It was certainly his full expectation that the number of diseases in the schedule would be multiplied several times before the Act came into actual operation. The question of procedure which the hon. Member had raised was a different point from the question whether or not they should have a schedule. The desire of the Government was to make the list of diseases complete by the simplest and most rapid procedure that could be adopted. They had thought that objection would be raised if they had proposed to throw upon additional industries the duty of paying compensation by simple order of the Secretary of State, but if the House preferred procedure by Home Office Order in this case to procedure by Provisional Order, the Government would have no objection to the change. He would point out that the question of diseases was infinitely more complicated than the question of accidents. If a man was suffering from an accident the fact was easily ascertained, and it could be easily seen whether the accident was due to his employment. 985 There was practically never any question as to who was the employer who ought rightly to be charged with the cost of compensation. When they turned to the question of diseases they were plunged in a maze of uncertainty. It had to be determined whether a man was suffering from a particular disease; then whether or not that particular illness did arise from his work, or whether it was a disease incident to the rest of the population; and, thirdly, who was the particular employer who ought rightly to be called upon to pay compensation. These difficulties had prevented Prance from touching this question. Not one of the British Colonies, advanced as they were in matters of social legislation, had ventured to introduce compensation for diseases. Only countries like Germany, which had a compulsory system of insurance not only for accidents but for general sickness, had been able to give compensation for trade diseases. Switzerland had a law on the subject, but it was of very small effect. He would point out what the Government scheme was, and what change in it would be effected by the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. The scheme was that a man who thought he was suffering from one of the industrial diseases should get a certificate from a certifying surgeon, and that in the event of an employer or a workman being aggrieved by the action of the certifying surgeon the matter should be referred to a medical referee. In many cases the medical referees would be specialists who had particular knowledge of certain obscure disease.0. Having obtained a certificate the worker could claim as an absolute right compensation from the employer, unless the employer could prove that the disease was not contracted in his employment. That was the essence of the Government scheme. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment did not deal for a moment with the fact that the Bill gave a man the right to compensation unless the employer could disprove the claim. The burden of proof was thrown upon the employer. In the diseases that had been scheduled as attaching to particular industries, in 999 cases out of 1,000 there could be no doubt at all that disease was due to 986 the employment. What his hon. friend proposed by his Amendment was that all that the certifying surgeon had to say was that here was a man suffering from a disease. Having got that certificate the workman had only got to go to the Court and ask for compensation, and the Court would be obliged to award it, unless the employer could prove that the disease was not contracted in the course of his employment. They might take, for example, a case of anæmia, a disease widely prevalent among all classes of the population, especially among young women. Any shop-girl suffering from anæmia could get a certificate that she was suffering from that disease, and she would get compensation unless the employer could prove that the anæmia was not contracted in his employment. Again, there was the case of a clerk advanced in years who found himself becoming more and more short-sighted—like most persons. The time might come when he had to give up work on account of this trouble; he consulted the surgeon who would be obliged to give him a cartificate, and unless the employer could prove that the short-sightedness had not been contracted in the course of his employment, he would have to pay the clerk compensation. Then there was the case of the agricultural labourer who was suffering from rheumatism, to which farm, workers were, partly from the nature of their employment, very liable. He might, if the Amendment were adopted, ask for compensation, not from all the farmers with whom he had been engaged throughout his career, but from the farmer who last employed him, and that unfortunate farmer would be compelled to pay him half wages for the rest of his life. Was that what the House intended? Of course hon. Members might say "omit the burden of proof on the employer and go back to the process of the ordinary law under which the workman would have to prove that the disease was caused in the course of of his employment." But that would be unjust to the wool worker suffering from anthrax, who ought not to have to go into Court to prove that he contracted the disease in his employment, or the workman suffering from lead poisoning. The farther alternative might be pro-posed, that in these clear cases the burden 987 of proof should be on the employer, in all others on the workman. But then there must be a schedule, and this Amendment could not in any case be accepted. Besides, how could a Court of law decide that an anæmic girl, a short-sighted clerk, or a rheumatic agricultural labourer had contracted their respective diseases in their last employment? It would throw on the Court an impossible burden. It was said of the Act of 1897 by a distinguished Judge that it had brought such a vast number of cases into the Courts that "a scandal of litigation surrounded it." But if this Amendment were adopted the ligitation under that Act would be a mere trifle compared with the ligitation under this, and the Courts would be absolutely choked with cases under it. But there was a further grave objection. What course would employers adopt? They would look very carefully at any man who asked for employment if they were to be liable for compensation to any man who was suffering from any disease. That would involve a medical examination which every candidate for employment would have to pass.
§ MR. MARKHAM (Nottinghamshire, Mansfield)said that at present medical examinations were insisted upon.
§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that in certain industries there was an examination which the men had to pass; for instance, in the potteries, to see whether he showed the slightest tendency to lead poisoning.
§ MR. MARKHAMsaid that the largest engineering firm in the country—Vickers, Sons & Maxim—insisted as a condition of employment on a medical examination.
§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that that was not at present the rule throughout the country. There would be, besides, if the Amendment were adopted, a periodical examination of persons subject to sickness, and if they were found to be in any degree ailing they would be necessarily dismissed in order to get rid of the enormous burden which, would be placed on the employers. It was impossible for the Government to undertake the responsi- 988 bility of passing legislation embodying a provision of this nature. The Committee of which he had spoken would extend the schedule as widely as possible. They were animated by the desire to bring in everybody who could be properly included, and on that assurance, and in view of the total impracticability of the Amendment as it stood, he hoped his hon. friend would not press his Motion.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)said, that the Under-Secretary had had an easy task in treating this Amendment as if it stood by itself. It must be accompanied by Amendments making it a complete proposal. His hon. friend had moved the Amendment in the absence, on account of illness, of the hon. Member for Berwickshire who had made himself master of this question. The reason why the subject involved in the Amendment was raised at this point, and the reason why he intended to support it, was that they desired to see at the earliest possible moment how far the Government were prepared to meet the very strong case put forward against the narrow Government proposal. His hon. friend threw out at once the suggestion that if they dealt with this matter of industrial diseases, in a wider way than seemed to be contemplated by the schedule, it would be necessary to exempt certain trades; and the Under-Secretary met that by saying would it be conceivable that the House would be willing to exempt certain trades? His answer was, certainly it would. That was the course taken when they started this kind of legislation. It seemed to him inevitable that in starting this course of legislation for granting compensation for diseases of occupation they should exempt certain trades unless they proceeded by way of schedule. They had to consider a rival scheme for dealing with these diseases and the Government scheme in the schedule. The Government scheme was altogether too narrow, and he did not know that it contented anybody. Lead poisoning in the Potteries had been already dealt with, but there were other diseases in that district which were not covered by the 989 scheduled diseases in the Bill. He asked the Government how many workers would be brought in by this schedule or by any extension of it which they were promised? The Under-Secretary had raised cheers from a certain portion of the House by saying that within six months a great number of trades would be added to the schedule by means of Provisional Order. But could the Home Secretary say what sensible proportion of those who suffered from industrial diseases would be included by that Provisional Order? They all knew the horrible nature of industrial disease, and they all desired to deal with it. They also knew that it would be dealt with sooner or later, and that the experiment which was being started here would be followed later by other proposals under which the small handful of workers who would be covered by this schedule would be extended. The trades which the Under-Secretary had dealt with in the schedule were industries employing a very limited number of workers, with the exception of the pottery trade and coal-mining. The collier was included, however, only in respect of miners'-worm, a disease from which he was happily at present free. With such a limited inclusion let them contrast the numerous factory trades affected by certain fluffs, certain dusts, and certain dyes—those in which consumption and anæmia prevailed. The Under-Secretary had announced his desire to deal experimentally with certain trades. Against the Amendment he took two examples of diseases with which he thought it was almost ridiculous to suppose that they could hope to deal. He would take the Under-Secretary on his strongest point, which he made quite apart from any question of rheumatism being contracted in agriculture,—anæmia in manufactories. The Under-Secretary mentioned phthisis—[Cries of "No"]—and anæmia. Now, the diseases of women employed in factory life were, according to the inspectors of the Home Office—over and over again expressed in the admirable Reports before Parliament—caused in a high degree by the circulation in certain trades of dangerous kinds of dust, and in certain other trades by the circulation in the air of specially dangerous kinds of dyes. There were in conse- 990 quence definite diseases from causes which had been ascertained, and science had now grasped the nature of those disorders and had ascertained their exact character and the method of dealing with them. But they came under the sort of designation of the Under-Secretary, who talked about them as unimportant. He would instance anæmia, which meant that women lost their strength and died away of bloodlessness, and was sometimes a perfectly ascertainable trade disease. The Under-Secretary suggested that the diseases which he was putting into the schedule were of a simple type.
§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUELNo.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the hon. Gentleman just before had used the word "simple." He had also denied that he used the word "phthisis."
§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUELreplied that on the contrary he had said that many of these diseases were obscure and difficult to ascertain the cause of, but he said that they were known to be specific diseases attaching to particular trades.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid that the Under-Secretary gave up the case, but they had taken down the word "simple," and he had been intending to demolish him by the opinion of his own officials. Coming to the similar case, that of anæmia, he wished definitely to ask the Government how many workers there were in the trades which were being inquired into and which they were promised should be dealt with next year; what proportion of them were sufferers from these specially dangerous diseases throughout the country. In his opinion it would prove that they were merely trifling in number, in fact a mere handful who were to be dealt with by this order and by local inquiry. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman how in previous Factory Acts, in consequence of strong expression of opinion and pressure in the House of Commons, power had been taken to adopt action after inquiry, by way of Home Office Order. But those who had taken an interest in this question had suffered deep disappointment year after year by the absence of inquiry and action, 991 and generations had died before any progress was made. There was no person interested in manual labour who did not know how they had groaned year after year for this extension of powers, although they gave the Secretary of State, by the stroke of the pen or by means of local inquiry, power to alter matters. The system now proposed was a slower one, however, than that which already existed, and the wheels of it might easily be clogged. For the last ten or fifteen years we had had the dangerous trades ascertained and yet they had not yet been included in the operation of Orders. He stated distinctly that in supporting the Amendment he did so at this point, which was the first point at which it could be discussed, on the ground that the time had arrived when the House should decide whether they would deal with this subject in a general clause or whether they would deal with it in a schedule. If they dealt with it in a schedule let them remember that the schedule was likely to be of a limited description which would for years leave outside the law an overwhelming majority of the cases of industrial disease which ought to be dealt with.
§ MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the schedule had to be added to.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKEadmitted that it had to be added to, but that was upon the statement of the Government that they would inquire into those special trades and the circumstances connected with them. That was to say, that the Government ruled out the intention of ascertaining the industrial diseases of the great trades. [Cries of "No."] That was the way it struck him. He had no object and the Government had no object except to try to obtain the best solution of this question, but he did feel very strongly, having given much time and thought to the subject, that the plan of proceeding by schedule was not likely to achieve that success which the Home Secretary expected. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that there was a chance before them of an immense extension of this schedule, but he did not see -any such prospect. Anthrax was already 992 covered by the law, and lead poisoning was covered by the law under Lord James of Hereford's scheme. [Mr. JOHN WARD: But that only applies to the Potteries.] That was so. It only applied to the Potteries, and other industries were still unprotected. The other four diseases mentioned in the schedule were small special diseases, and one of those included was miners' worm, a German disease, which did not exist. The other three out of the four were confined to tiny trades so far as the number of persons employed in them was concerned, but the great trades were not dealt with. If the Home Secretary could assure them that he was going by Order in Council and special inquiry to deal effectively with the great trades, their objections would be met.
§ MR. LYTTELTON (St. George's, Hanover Square)said he wished to speak with great moderation on the principle of this Amendment, because it was in itself difficult to discuss in its present form. He was speaking only for himself, because he was sure that what he said would not have the assent of some of those with whom he usually acted. He should like for a moment to look at the broad principle which he conceived this Amendment to raise. The plan of the Government was practically to leave the question of compensating for diseases arising from dangerous trades by making it a condition of compensation that there should be certification by the Home Office. That was the condition of another trade being subjected to liability for diseases arising in it. The policy of the Amendment was that experience of what diseases, in point of fact, arose from dangerous trades should be gleaned now and in the future as they came along in those trades, so that there would not be outside of all remedy a number of trades from which diseases arose but regarding which a certificate had not obtained from the Home Office putting them in the category of dangerous. The consideration which arose under the Bill as it stood was admittedly that there were a large number of dangerous trades outside the purview of the Act altogether. His hon. friend who put down this Amendment, seeing 993 the exceedingly small number of trades which were scheduled, and knowing, from his own personal experience of many years, that several dangerous trades existed which ought to be scheduled, conceived that it was necessary to place this Amendment on the Paper in order that an explanation of the position of the Government might be extracted. As the Bill stood a number of people who would be excluded from the benefits of this clause altogether, and they would not merely be excluded, but they would have the bitterness of feeling that a number of others not less or more deserving than themselves were included in the benefits from which they were excluded. In the absence of his right hon. friend the Member for West Birmingham, who was the author of all this legislation, he regretted it as a peculiar misfortune that the graciousness of this legislation should be taken away and the consciousness borne in upon many people of the poorest and most suffering classes that they were excluded from the benefits of the Act, while a number of others not more deserving than they were included. When once a principle was established in measures of this sort and they were satisfied that it was sound and right, he thought there was a great deal to be said for graciously conferring its benefits upon all who might be entitled to them. If these benefits were extended by the experience gained as they went along, great inducement would be put on employers to take adequate measures for preventing diseases as they arose instead of leaving them until the trades themselves were scheduled. In that way suffering generally would be hindered and prevented in future. He claimed that the principle of this Amendment had two merits. In the first place, the graciousness of the legislation would not be impaired to all classes of workers who could establish in a Court of law that they had suffered and that their suffering was due to their employment; and in the second place, it would offer an inducement to employers to prevent the diseases from which the suffering arose. That was his object, and he freely recognised that that was also the object of the Government. The whole question between them was one of procedure. The Government had put 994 in the schedule five or six trades which they conceived to be dangerous, and the whole question was whether a more reasonable procedure was not provided by the Amendment. He was sure after what his right hon. friend said the other day, in a manner which gained the sympathy of the House, that the Home Office was enormously pressed with work at the present time, but still the Report of the Commission on Dangerous Trades had shown that seventeen trades were dangerous while only five or six had been scheduled in this Bill. He must say, notwithstanding the good will of the Home Secretary and the Under Secretary, that that experience was not encouraging to those who believed that a case had been established for the inclusion of all dangerous trades; and he did not think that without a great deal of expense any one would be able to convince the Home Office to certify many more trades than they had done. He would, however, await the explanation of the Home Secretary, which of course might alter their opinion. One word as to the procedure suggested by the Amendment. He gathered from his hon. friend who moved it that the agricultural industry and the sea-faring trade would be excluded from its operation. [Cries of "Why?"] He thought it was quite impossible that they should be included. [Renewed cries of "Why?"] He would tell hon. Members. He did not think that it was in contemplation by those who moved the Amendment, that illnesses which happened from exposure to the element? at sea, or in the course of agriculture should come under the Bill, [Renewed cries of "Why?"] He was not speaking for the mover of the Amendment, but he was speaking for himself. He would not support it if he did not think that the assurances of those who represented labour went to show that under the Amendment such illnesses would be excluded from the operation of the Bill. He thought the proper way was to exclude those particular industries. Having arrived at that, they would have this position under the Amendment in the case of other trades. Before the workman who was suffering from a disease arising, as he thought, from his employment could get any compensation he must satisfy a doctor that he had suffered from a disease of that kind. That decision of the doctor would be 995 subject to an appeal to a medical referee. In 999 cases out of 1,000 that would practically finish the matter, but if it did not, having the assertion of two doctors that the disease existed, the workmen would have to go a step further and show to the satisfaction of a legal tribunal that the disease which had been certified to exist did arise from the nature of the employment. [Cries of "No."] He was speaking of the Amendment as he understood it. He quite agreed that the serious objection to the Amendment was that litigation of a somewhat expensive character seemed to be embodied in the proposal, but he maintained that as a matter of practice, if a disease had once been certified by unquestionable authority to exist and there was no doubt about it, and if it was a disease which doctors said arose from the employment, the litigation would not be frequent or prolonged. One case would probably decide many others. He did not think he need say anything more upon the present occasion, as he knew other hon. Members were anxious to speak. What he wished to urge upon the Government was that they should satisfy themselves whether in the form of this Amendment they had not a more expeditious method of proceeding than by way of their schedule. He confessed that he was much impressed by what the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Forest of Dean had said about the expedition which had been commonly shown in this matter. He was impressed with the fact that since 1896 only five out of seventeen trades certified to be dangerous by the Departmental Committee of which the hon. Member for Berwickshire was chairman had been included in the Bill. He was also impressed with the fact that when they were the subject of Home Office inquiry as to whether they were dangerous or not, it was an expensive and lengthy process, and he would feel far easier if he knew that a workman suffering from disease caused by his employment could obtain compensation with due safeguards to his employers. They would be protected by the certificates of two doctors to the effect that the man was suffering from the disease, and that it was caused by his employment. He would feel better satisfied if the Act introduced a system resting upon experience instead of depending—he would not say on the caprice because that would not be 996 possible—but on the ipse dixit of a Department which had not shown itself very expeditious in the past in dealing; with these matters.
§ * MR. WEDGWOOD (Newcastle-under-Lyme)said he was not sure in which way the authors of this Amendment intended the onus of proof to lie. If the onus of proving that a disease was incidental to the nature of employment was to rest with the workman instead of with the employer, he and his friends from the Potteries would resist that to the end. It ought to be their object, not to push others out of any benefit, but to bring others in. They wanted to get as many people as possible included in the schedule. They did not want to strike out the whole of the third schedule, which was, so to speak, their sheet anchor. As far as the Potteries were concerned, he had it on the best authority that there was a new Pottery disease to be added to the schedule which was being considered by the Home Office Committee. If the onus of proof was to be left to the employer they would have what would amount to a general sickness insurance throughout the country. Practically every case of sickness that could be called a disease was bound to be insured by the employer under the Amendment. They had cases of influenza and phthisis cited, but, practically speaking, the only disease that a workman might have and not receive compensation for under this Amendment was delirium tremens. He considered that this discussion would have done good if it had only brought sickness insurance before the House, because he was confident there was no question so important for the working classes of this country as that sickness should be insured against and that they should receive some compensation for it similar to the sickness insurance in Germany. But the way to get that was not by the Amendment, which would lead to endless litigation. Under this scheme there would be no possible supervision over cases of sickness with the view of reducing them and stopping malingering, and there would be the greatest possible outcry in the country as to the unfairness of forcing the employer to pay the 997 sickness insurance. They should raise money for sickness insurance in the cheapest way and not as was proposed.
§ * MR. KEIR HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)said the Amendment did not raise the question of general sickness, but it proposed to extend to workmen who wore not employed in the scheduled trades the same privileges that were to be given to those under the schedule. All that was required for the purpose of the Amendment was that the disease must be shown to be due to the nature of the employment before the claim for compensation could arise under the Act, That was perfectly clear. The question was whether all workmen were to have the right to recover for disease due to their occupation or only those in the trades scheduled. The Under-Secretary for State, who, he hoped, had not said the last word for the Government upon this point, had raised considerable fears in the minds of Members by referring to the onerous cost which would be thrown upon employers, and had said that if this Amendment were carried very probably employers would be careful as to the health of the workmen whom they employed. He admitted that, but the arguments applied equally to the scheduled trades. Whether they had this Amendment or not the medical certificate which the Under-Secretary said would be necessary would become increasingly common when workmen were seeking employment. Might he further point out that anæmia and rheumatism were not diseases due to any special occupation? Rheumatism was common to people who had free-living ancestors behind them as well as to agricultural labourers who were exposed to the weather. Before compensation could be claimed it would have to be shown that the disease was particular to an occupation. All that they asked was that workpeople who were not now included in the schedule should have the same right as those who were included to recover compensation. They did not say a man who got a cold should be compensated, but if, for instance, a stonemason] contracted lung affection through inhaling dust, that was a disease arising directly out of his occupation, and he should be as entitled to com- 998 pensation as if he fell from a scaffold He hoped the distinction would be kept clearly in mind. He trusted that as the Government was making a beginning with this principle of compensation for industrial diseases they would not make two bites at the cherry, but would see to it that the clause was so broadened and extended as to include within the scope of compensation every workman who suffered from industrial disease.
§ * MR. GLADSTONEsaid that, as his hon. friend observed, they were all anxious to find a solution of this question. They were anxious that that solution should not be delayed. Without any absolutely preconceived scheme he had listened to the discussion with a view of finding out whether there was before the House any practical alternative to the remedy proposed by the Government. So far as he could observe, not one of the hon. Members who supported the Amendment agreed with another. First of all, they differed as to what the Amendment really was. Then there was a conflict of opinion as to the exclusion of agriculture. He failed to see why, if this Amendment were adopted, agriculture or seamen should be excluded. Again, there was the point as to the burden of proof. The words of subsection (2) of the clause remained standing. There were many consequential Amendments on the Paper, but there was none excluding the last two lines of that subsection. So long as those words stood it was quite dear that the onus of proof was on the employer. When the certifying surgeon certified that a workman had a disease his duty ended. Then the man went before the tribunal which had to decide as to his disease.
§ MR. LYTTELTONHe would under the right hon. Gentleman's scheme, but not under the scheme of this Amendment.
§ * MR. GLADSTONEdisagreed with the right hon. Gentleman. He was dealing with the Amendment. Until it was shown that there was a substantial alternative the Government were justified in maintaining their ground. It had not been shown that there was that substantial alternative. Then there had been developed a fourth point of view 999 amongst those who supported the Amendment. His right hon. friend the Member for the Forest of Dean, who spoke with a wealth of knowledge on these questions, petitioned for information. He would frankly tell his right hon. friend that the Government could give him none now. The reason was that they were only on the threshold of this business. He thought the hon. Member for the Blackfriars division of Glasgow would agree with him when he said that he had never drawn attention to the occasions on which he had supported proposals more extreme and advanced than the Departmental Committee recommended. He bad always recognised that it was due to the hon. Member to say that when he served on that Committee he was not able to see eye to eye with all of them, although he did not differ in the memorandum he appended to the Report. The hon. Member's only anxiety was to give the benefit of his experience and influence as one of a united body having regard to the general importance of the whole subject under consideration. The Committee of 1896 considered this question very carefully; and here he might observe—in reply to his right hon. friend opposite, who had seemed to bring up on his side the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and had suggested, as he understood him, that, if he had been present, the right hon. Gentleman would have supported the Amendment—that the right hon. Gentleman not only opposed his hon. friend the Member for Berwickshire in 1897 when he brought forward this subject, but did him the honour to accompany a deputation he received some time ago and spoke most strongly on the particular proposal in the Bill, urging that it was extremely dangerous. The Committee of 1896 reported against dealing with the question, and the Government were thus face to face with the unanimous recommendation of a powerful Committee, and they felt that they must proceed in the matter tentatively and by cautions steps, because, if they were to make a false step, they might land the workmen of the country in a most unfortunate position arising out of the litigation they might be compelled to engage in if they wished to prove their case. Under such an 1000 Amendment as this the unfortunate workman would have to wend his tortuous way to compensation through the law. As to the action of the Home Office on this question daring the last ten years, he could not admit that it had been in any sense dilatory. If there had been dilatoriness in any public office, those who were at the head of the Department were responsible. From his experience as Under-Secretary ten years age, and during his tenure of his present office, he was able to say that the officials of the Home Office would spare no effort to respond to any appeal made to them. If there had been any dilatoriness it certainly was not the fault of the Home Office. He did not know what the hon. Member for North West Ham had got hold of when he made the statement that only five out of seventeen trades had been dealt with. He held in his hand a Return which showed that twenty-five trades had been dealt with and were now placed under regulations, and there were others about to be brought under rules and regulations.
§ MR. LYTTELTONThe point was that they were not in the schedule.
§ * MR. GLADSTONEsaid he was trying to show that there had been great vigour shown in the Home Office in connection with the work of the Dangerous Trades Committee, and he might say that the same vigour would be brought to bear upon any stops the Department might be called upon to take under this Bill. His hon. friend had already shown the practical difficulties of the scheme which had been adumbrated by the hon. Gentleman. He admitted that in regard to procedure by Provisional Orders there was a difficulty. He might say that the Provisional Order proposal was not put in because they were enamoured of that method, which was sometimes very convenient and at other times was not. The Provisional Order was proposed in anticipation of the criticisms which the Government believed would be showered on their heads if they ventured to deal with this matter without consulting Parliament. It now appeared that they were not so much blamed for their scheme as for not going a great deal further. In these circumstances he would be glad to see what could be done to meet the 1001 views of his hon. friend. He would undertake to see that no time was lost by the Committee in completing their inquiry, and he would be prepared to accept an Amendment, or to propose one, altering the Provisional Order scheme, so that the Home Office, as soon as it was satisfied from inquiry that a particular trade should be added to the schedule, would be able to add it. He hoped these assurances would be satisfactory.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (City of London)said the right hon. Gentleman began his speech by making some criticism of the variety of opinion expressed on the part of the supporters of the Amendment. He thought there was some justification for the right hon. Gentlemen's complaint. It was true that the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken in favour of the Amendment had not all used precisely the same language, and that they had not advocated precisely the same plan. That was due to the fact that, in regard to this question, the House was in rather a perplexed frame of mind. There was a problem to be solved; they were not quite clear how it was to be dealt with; they were well aware that any solution had difficulties in its way. For his part he felt, after listening to the debate, that to reject the plan of scheduling particular diseases incident to particular trades would be to embark on a dangerous course. He did not say that they might not be obliged at some future time to proceed on the German method and to arrange that all cases, both of accident and of sickness, should be met by some form of insurance. That was a plan simpler in the sense that it did not lead to litigation; and although contrary to many of our most cherished methods of legislation, it was not open to the particular objections that seemed to be applicable to the plan which some hon. Gentlemen opposite desired to see adopted in this Bill. He was certain that they had got to choose between restricting the compensation to those cases in which disease was really specific to an industry, and some plan of much wider scope which would include every malady incident to the workers of the country. He did not believe in a half-and-half plan which would inflict infinite hardship on both the employed and the employer. What was the alternative plan of the Government? It was suggested that, 1002 somehow or other, if a man got a disease it should be thrown on the Courts of law to determine whether it was or was not due to his employment. If due to his employment he was to have compensation; if not, there was to be no compensation. Did not that scheme carry with it obviously on its face not merely that it had difficulties in regard to the degree of litigation, but a manifest ignoring of the plain truths of medical science? All of us were mortal, and our death was preceded, not uncommonly, by some disease, occasioned always, or almost always, no doubt, by something in our environment touching the weak spot in our separate organisations. That was the common law of nature. If that were so, was it not always true in one sense that our diseases were due to our occupations? That was to say, the human frame broke down because the weak spot was touched or affected by something in our surroundings. Cases of rheumatism and consumption had been referred to. If a growing young person of either sex showed a consumptive tendency they could, he believed, do nothing better than give that person an outdoor occupation. But this carried with it liability to rheumatism and other diseases, the consequence of exposure; and he wanted to know how they were going to deal with the complaint of a subject with some tendency to consumption who was not immune from these other diseases. A young woman entering a shop got anæmia, and got it undoubtedly because she was in the shop. Did that make anæmia a disease incident to that particular business? Suppose, per contra, she entered, as young women of delicate constitution constantly did in his part of the country, into the fields to work and got some malady consequent on exposure? Was she to be compensated for anæmia if she went into a shop or into service and for rheumatism if she went into the fields? They could not say that those diseases were incident to the employment. If they did they would get into hopeless muddle. Was it not manifest that if they were to treat this matter as analogous to compensation for accidents they must take the diseases which wore quite plainly specific to the occupation, treat thorn as incidents of the industry, spread the charge over the whole industry, and 1003 get the insurance for the workmen out of the industry as a whole? If they meant to go further and make every disease to which poor humanity was liable a subject of compensation they would produce a crop of litigation, and no other crop whatever. If these were the cases they meant to meet, let them boldly take the course of universal insurance, taking something from the workman and something from the employer so that everybody would be protected against the changes and chances of this mortal life, and deal with the subject in a comprehensive spirit. But let them not make legislation an absolute farce and absurdity by attempting in a Bill dealing with compensation for workmen to deal with those common misfortunes, universal maladies, and incidents from which none of us were free, and which could not be dealt with in any measure immediately directed against particular and special misfortunes. They must be dealt with on broader lines and by other methods, and in a manner which would comprehend all trades and occupations. These were the conclusions he had come to from listening to the debate, and he would support the Government in resisting the Amendment.
§ MR. MOND (Chester)said that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, interesting as it was, was not very much to the point. It had been said that the one thing which was not included in the German workmen's compensation law was compensation for sickness; but he would quote from the German law on industrial accidents. The definition in that law was very wide and included any injury whatever to the body, or any mental disturbance such as insanity and hysteria. These were subject to compensation. That went very much further than the Amendment of his hon. friend. People who always talked about German legislation should take the trouble to read it. His hon. friend the Under-Secretary had said that the Government could not accept the Amendment because we had not got the German system of insurance. If they were told that nothing could be done in the direction indicated by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, it was obvious that the House was quite ready to allow 1004 hundreds of thousands of miserable people to perish without doing anything for them. For his part, he could not understand, if a man went down into a mine and was injured by disease on which paralysis followed, why he should not be as much entitled to compensation as if his skull had been fractured by a chunk of coal falling upon him. The whole difference between the Government and those who supported the Amendment was, to this mind, that the latter said that an accident caused by disease was as much an accident as an accident caused by machinery, and that compensation ought to be paid in both cases. They had not had from the Government any attempt to deal with the difficulty of definition—a difficulty which he had admitted. They had been charged with not attempting a definition, but it would be absurd for them to do so without knowing if the Government would first accept their Amendment. He would like to ask the Home Secretary whether he was right in understanding that the Government were willing to accept an Amendment to sub-section (6) to omit the words "from any such order" to "in like manner." That would simplify procedure.
§ * MR. GLADSTONEsaid he proposed to move an Amendment to that effect.
§ MR. MONDsaid that all that he and his friends asked was that all trades now certified as dangerous should be put into the schedule.
§ * SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)said that he had taken an active part in the Committee upstairs and had very carefully considered all the provisions of this Bill. It was only due to the Government to say that he highly approved of the new and salutary proposals introduced into the Bill. Five diseases were mentioned in the schedule, two of which affected industries with which he was associated. The first of the cases mentioned was anthrax, which was highly interesting because it was thought to be outside this particular legislation, but by the decision of a Court such had been proved not to be the case. Anthrax was connected with a particular class of 1005 raw material only found in certain district. He entertained some doubts as to whether it would not be right for the Government to empower the Customs to exclude raw material which was known to contain such dangerous elements. The next case was that relating to a disease connected with the mining industry. He believed that that terrible disease— ankylostomiasis—had not found its way into this country, but he was sure the Government had acted with wisdom and prudence in placing it on the list which they had put into the Bill. It had been remarked by previous speakers that the schedule was meagre, but he would remind the House that it was adopted in the Standing Committee by the Labour Members, whose position and exceptional ability were acknowledged. He certainly felt that the schedule would be extended from time to time. A disease well known in the textile districts was consumption. As that disease was sometimes generated by the heated atmosphere of the mill it was an industrial disease and might be treated as such. It appeared to them that there must be in all cases a margin in order to meet the cases of those who would otherwise be just excluded. He hoped that as time went on there would be a large extension of the principle of compensation, and that that would go on until they had a general insurance against all diseases. He was glad to hear the remark of the Home Secretary as to the system of Provisional Orders, and that the last word had not been spoken as to that mode of procedure. There was a danger in any system of uniformity, and he looked to the Government to bring forward a measure to simplify procedure in all these cases. As representing an industrial district he rejoiced most sincerely in the extensions which had been made by the Bill, and he thanked the Government for the action they had taken.
MR. SHA.CKLETON (Lancashire, Clitheroe)said he did not wish to take up the time of the House, but everybody would see the gravity of this matter and recognise the importance of the discussion. There was a great spirit of unrest in regard to this matter, not only 1006 on the part of the workpeople, but on the part of a large section of the public who were determined that something should be done for those dangerous trades which were not included, and that relief should be given to the people who suffered as the result of their occupation. He wanted a further assurance upon this matter. He quite recognised that this year the right hon. Gentleman had appointed a Committee which would no doubt shortly report, and, so far, that was good. But he wished to see the cumbrous method of getting these trades into the schedule considerably modified. He thought the Home Office might adopt some plan by which it would, be more easy for people who had no direct representation in this House to deal with the matter. It was quite true that Labour representatives could press the needs of their own particular societies at times, but there were many sections of labour who had not that opportunity, and the Home Office should not make it difficult for them to get on the schedule. For years at least seven trades had been certified as dangerous, yet they were not scheduled, and the House should have a promise from the right hon. Gentleman in regard to those seven trades that they should, if not immediately, at least in the near future be scheduled. Surely it was not necessary when nothing had been done for ton years to go on with inquiry after inquiry when facts had already been decided and recommendations made. The time of Departmental Committees should not be wasted in going into these matters over and over again. If the right hon. Gentleman would give an assurance that these seven trades should be considered with regard to their being put into the schedule he would have gone some way towards getting the House out of its difficulty. they ought to be inserted in the schedule, and the people engaged in them should receive the benefit of the provisions of the Bill. Besides the seven to which he particularly referred there were at least fourteen others which had been recommended for application, but which were not yet certified. With regard to the seven that were on the list he asked that some steps should be taken by the right 1007 hon. Gentleman to show that the Home Office was determined to act on the recommendation of the Committee.
§ MR. FENWICK (Northumberland, Wansbeck)said he was glad the Home Secretary had been able to make a statement to the House which would obviate the necessity for going to a division on the Amendment. He believed there was very little difference between the intentions of the Home Secretary and those who desired to support the Amendment. What was the position in which they stood? The Home Secretary intended that the Bill should apply to diseases incidental to and arising out of the nature of the employment, and that if a man suffered from such a disease he should be entitled to claim compensation while the incapacity lasted. Some diseases were mentioned in the third sehdule, but he regarded the schedule as merely an indication of the lines that were to be followed when the Bill came into operation. In sub-section (6) of the clause the Home Secretary took power to bring in a Provisional Order Bill extending the benefits of the Bill to other industries or processes of industry. He was glad that the Home Secretary had agreed to amend the next paragraph in sub-section (6) because therein lay the crux of the whole question. What he objected to was that the Home Secretary, having taken power by means of Provisional Orders to extend the advantages of the clause to other industries not mentioned in the schedule, and other diseases not now known to the medical faculty but which might in the process of time become known to them, should have to wait until by Act of Parliament the Provisional Order was confirmed. He desired that the Home Secretary, when satisfied that a disease was one incidental to or arising out of the nature of the employment, should immediately schedule that disease and employment as dangerous. The Home Secretary acted upon his own responsibility; he was responsible to Parliament, and his conduct had to be reviewed from time to time, so that if the House was not satisfied with his action or inaction they would pretty well keep him up to the mark. It was difficult, if not impossible, to mention every disease and every trade in the schedule 1008 to an Act of Parliament, and he should feel alarmed at the length to which such schedule might run. There would be ample protection if the Home Secretary would amend or strike out altogether the provision referred to, and leave himself the power to act upon his own. initiative or upon the advice of the certifying surgeons of the respective districts in which the dangerous trades existed. By taking that course a division on the Amendment would be obviated. At any rate, he felt it due to the House to say that if that line were taken he should be disposed to support the Government against the Amendment.
§ * MR. HEEBERT SAMUELsaid the hon. Member for Clitheroe had urged that all trades certified as dangerous should be brought into this clause, but he would remind the hon. Gentleman that some trades were certified as dangerous not on account of any disease they engendered but because of special risks. Others were certified because of disease, but the disease itself was seldom mentioned in the rules. If the Government were to schedule those trades any man who worked at them would be able to get compensation for any disease from which he was suffering. That was not, he knew, the object of the hon. Member who wished to get trade diseases on the schedule. If this matter was dealt with by rules instead of Provisional Order he thought he could promise that before the Act came into operation all clear cases of trade disease would be inserted.
§ * MR. GLADSTONEsaid he proposed when they came to sub-section (2) to alter it by omitting the provision. A subsequent Amendment of the Government altered the first lines of the next paragraph so that Clause 6 would stand by itself and give the Home Office direct power to act.
§ MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS (Sheffield, Ecclesall)said he rose, as a member of the Grand Committee, to make an appeal to the Member for North West Ham After the explanation given by the Home Secretary he wished to ask him to withdraw this Amendment. He was perfectly sure the hon. Member had the 1009 interests of the workmen at heart, but the hon. Member admitted there were great difficulties in the way. Those difficulties arose from the fact that there was hardly an employment in this country that did not apparently bring some kind of disease or illness with it. It was obviously impossible to include all cases. What was intended by this Bill was that industrial diseases should be included and compensated for. The Government scheduled certain diseases and they now proposed to deal with others by rules. The suggestion was that as soon as the Departmental Committee reported, if they reported that these diseases were industrial diseases, they should be included. That, however, was not to be the end. In the future if other diseases were discovered that ought to be included all that would have to be done would be to approach the Home Office, prove the case, and those diseases would also be included. He hoped under these circumsances the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment.
§ MR. MASTERMANsaid he understood the right hon. Gentleman had given to the House an assurance that the Provisional Order scheme should be abandoned by a Government Amendment, and he understood from the hon. Member that under Section 1 these other trades would be included. He could not in the least pretend that he personally was satisfied, but he gathered a sufficient number of hon. Members were satisfied, and, therefore, he would not press the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 9, line 1, to leave out sub-section (b) (i)."—(Sir diaries Dike.)
§ Question proposed.
§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid this sub-section was put in in Committee in order that they might give an indication to the Court as to what ought to be included in "serious and wilful misconduct," and in order that a greater incentive might be given to the workmen to observe the rules made for their protection. The Government had now made 1010 an alteration in the application of the provision relating to "serious and wilful misconduct" which would necessitate putting a similar provision in this subsection; and this would make it extremely complicated. Everything of substance that this paragraph proposed would be covered by "serious and wilful misconduct," and the Government therefore accepted the Amendment.
§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)thought that the sub-section would be of real value in tending to diminish the incidence of these diseases. The arguments of the hon. Member for North West Ham, to whom he had listened with great sympathy, applied with equal force to the workmen, and it appeared to him to be extremely desirable to put upon the workmen in the clearest terms the obligation to observe reasonable precautions. He did not follow the observations of the hon. Member the Under-Secretary. This clause dealt with disease and not with accidents, and it was always more difficult to induce people to take precautions against disease than against accidents. They could see dangerous machinery at work, and therefore took precautions against accidents, but disease they did not see, and it was difficult to induce them to believe in the danger or to bring it before their imagination in a, sufficiently vivid manner; to induce them to protect themselves against it.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he was sorry the Government had given way in this matter. He did not think the words put in sub-section (1) covered the whole point. What had to be done was to make the workpeople as careful as possible, and experience showed that less precaution was taken against disease than against accidents, as his noble friend had pointed out. He admitted that these words did not make much difference, but if the right hon. Gentleman desired to reduce the number of accidents he should place as much warning before the workpeople as possible. Every Member of the House must be actuated by the same motive, which was to prevent the cause which led to these applications for compensation for disease.
§ * MR. WEDGWOODsaid that in North Staffordshire certain conferences had taken place between the employers and workmen in the potteries industry on this very question, and, although no definite agreement had been come to, he thought he knew the reason why the employers wished these words to remain in the Bill, and why the workpeople desired to have them taken out. The employers wished them to remain to prevent accidents. Disease did not come suddenly, and the employers wanted these words to be constantly in front of the workpeople in order to warn them of what the consequences of neglect might be. But there were other considerations. There were at the present time three ways of insuring that the rules drawn up by the Home Office were enforced. There was the factory inspector, the periodical visits of the certifying surgeon and his examination of all the workpeople, and the enforcement of strict obedience to the rules. The factory inspector, however, could not visit every pottery very frequently, and when he made his visit he might not find the rules being broken, but nevertheless the rules were frequently and constantly broken. The whole object of legislation should be to see that the rules were not broken. And this would be facilitated by this Amendment. The person who could best do that was the employer, and if he saw definitely once and for all that he would have to pay compensation in the case of lead-poisoning whether the workmen had contracted the disease through disobeying the rules or not he would be far more careful in seeing that the rules were obeyed. The rules were broken in many cases by men smoking, and by both men and women making tea, and by women eating sweets in the dipping house. All these rules were broken repeatedly, and that was the cause of a great deal of the lead-poisoning. If it was made quite clear that no amount of breaking the rules would debar a man who contracted disease from obtaining compensation the employers would see their rules obeyed even if they had to take the drastic measure of dismissing some of their employees. It would be therefore just as well to leave these words out of the Bill. He did not wish it to be imagined 1012 that employers had ever refused to pay compensation in cases where disease had been contracted through disobedience to the rules. That had never been the case.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 9, line 8, after the word 'himself,' to insert the words 'in writing.'"—(Mr. John Ward.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ * MR. GIBBS (Bristol, W.)said the object of the Amendment he now proposed was to insure that, where a disease was not contracted in his employment it should not be incumbent upon the employer to find out where his employee had contracted it. In the case of a man who had been working in many places it would be a matter of extreme difficulty to the employer to find out where the man had contracted the disease. He did not think it would be difficult for the certifying surgeon nowadays to ascertain how long a man had had a certain disease, and from that it would be pretty clear where the man had contracted it.
§ MR. HICKS BEACH (Gloucestershire, Tewkesbury)seconded. The clause as it now stood appeared to inflict an excessive obligation on the employer. If a man developed an industrial disease a week after going into the service of an employer, that employer would have to pay compensation for a disease contracted before the man entered his employ, unless he proved in whose service the man contracted the disease. He thought it was the general intention of the House that the Act should be as fair as possible to both employers and employed, and while he admitted that the obligation should be cast upon the employer to prove that the disease was not contracted in his employ, he thought it was rather hard that he should have to prove who the employer was in whose service the disease was actually contracted.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 9, line 14, at the end, to insert the words Unless the employer proves that the disease was not in fact contracted whilst the
1013
workman was in his employment, but without any obligation on the employer to prove in whose employment the workman was when he contracted the disease."'—(Mr. Gibbs.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid this Amendment touched one of the most complex and difficult problems they had to deal with in this clause. In the case of accidents the matter was simple. There was no doubt, or very little doubt, as to the employment in which a workman suffered an accident. A disease, however, might have been contracted some months before the incapacity declared itself, and during its incubation the workman might have moved about in different employments, and the question was as to who was to pay the compensation. There were two alternative courses. One was to allow the workman to pick and choose, and go against any employer who had employed him during the last twelve months; if he failed against one he would proceed against another. That would lead to litigation in a great number of cases which the Government desired to avoid. The other alternative was that the workman should go against the employer in whose employ he was at the time of the incapacity. In the majority of cases the disease would have been contracted in that employment; but cases might arise in which the master could show that the disease was not contracted in his employment and a process was provided whereby the liability was put on to a previous employer. There would be very few such cases. This Amendment would involve two proceedings in those cases instead of the one suggested in the Bill in the interests of cheapness and expedition. Where the last employer showed that a man, admittedly suffering from an industrial disease, had not contracted it in his employment, the Court would usually hold that that fact was in itself a proof that it had been contracted in a previous employment. He admitted the possibility of a case arising in which a workman refused to or did not furnish his last employer with the names and addresses of his former employers, but such cases would, he thought, be exceedingly rare. If hon. Members desired it he had no objection to inserting the following 1014 Amendment to meet such a case: "And, if such information is not furnished, that employer, upon proving that the disease was not contracted whilst the workman was in his employment, shall not be liable to pay compensation." He did not think this was any hardship on the workman, because he ought to be able to say who his previous employer was. If he could not say who he was, then, if his last employer could prove clearly in Court that the disease was not contracted with him, the workman would have to forego his compensation.
§ * SIR FRANCIS POWELLsaid that unless something in the nature of this Amendment were inserted the employer must feel that he was hardly dealt with. The burden which would rest on the employer of proving that the disease was not contracted whilst the man was in his employ would be a very heavy one, and one which only in extreme cases could be borne. Unless, however, the Amendment were carried the employer would have to bear a burden he ought not to bear, and one which would inflict an additional weight on industries already unduly loaded.
§ MR. RAWLINSON (Cambridge University)admitted that the proposal of the Under-Secretary was a step in the right direction, but said it did not meet the difficulty which this Amendment was put forward to remove Surely it was a monstrous act of injustice that an employer who had proved that the illness of the workman was not contracted in his employ should be liable to pay compensation unless he could prove, which it was almost impossible for him to do, in whose employment the workman really did contract the disease. They must deal with this section not only with a regard to the diseases in the schedule but having regard to other diseases which he hoped would be added to the Bill. It was perfectly possible that a workman might have been in various employments during twelve months. If the Amendment were carried there would be nothing to prevent the man making his claim against the employer in whose employment he thought he contracted the disease. If that employer desired it the workman could add if he chose, two or three other of his employers, and it would be for the 1015 Court to determine whether he acted reasonably, and in that case the unsuccessful employer would have to pay the costs of the other people. That was very different to the section as it stood, because it forced upon the innocent employer the very heavy burden of either paying compensation to a workman to whom morally he was not liable, or taking the risk of selecting a previous employer of the workman.
§ MR. GIBBSsaid that though the Undersecretary bad not gone so far as he could have wished, he would ask leave to -withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendments proposed to the Bill—
In page 9, line 1G, after the word 'workman,' to insert the words 'or his dependants.'
In page 9, line 17, after the word 'with,' to insert the words 'such information as to.'"—
In page 9, line 19, after the word 'months,' to insert the words 'as he or they may possess.'
In page 10, line C, to leave out the words 'from whom compensation is recoverable,' and insert the words 'who last employed the workman during the said twelve months in the employment to the nature of which the disease was due.'
In page 10, line 30, after the word 'be to insert the words' such date as the certifying surgeon certifies as the date on which the disablement commenced, or if he is unable to certify such a date, the date on which the certificate is given. Provided that.'
In page 10, line 33, after the word 'disablement,' to insert the words 'the date of disablement shall be.'
In page'10, line 38, after the word 'disablement,' to insert the words 'it shall be.'
In page 10, to leave out lines 39 and 40."— (Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
§ Amendments agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 11, line 6, to leave out the word 'Provisional.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'Provisional' stand part of the Bill."
§ * MR. COCHRANEasked for an explanation of this proposal.
§ * MR. GLADSTONEsaid it was originally intended to proceed by Pro- 1016 visional Orders, but the House had expressed itself desirous of proceeding by Orders issued by the Secretary of State.
§ * MR. COCHRANEasked if those Orders would be laid upon the Table of the House as was done in the case of Provisional Orders. He thought both sides of the House would agree that they ought to have an opportunity of considering and reviewing them.
§ * MR. GLADSTONEsaid this point had been discussed earlier in a general debate, and he understood that the promise he made to omit the word "Provisional" was generally accepted.
§ * MR. COCHRANEsaid they did not understand that those Orders would not be laid upon the Table of the House. He thought they ought to be subjected to discussion in the same way as an ordinary Provisional Order. He was afraid that by this alteration the House was losing a valuable privilege, and he hoped the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary would give them some assurance that they would be able to discuss these Orders.
§ MR. LAURENCE HARDY (Kent, Ashford)said that if the Secretary of State by his own ipse dixit could add trades to the schedule the employers concerned would have no power to bring forward their case. If this could be done without reference to Parliament the employers would lose the power which the Government originally proposed to give them of being able to present their case in the most authoritative way possible.
§ * MR. GLADSTONEsaid that in the main discussion upon this point he was pressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, and from all quarters of the House to make this concession, and objection ought to have been taken to it at that time.
§ MR. LAURENCE HARDYwas quite aware that the right hon. Gentleman said he was ready to alter the elaborate procedure before Parliament, provided in the Bill, to some other procedure 1017 under which it would be regulated by the Home Office, but if that involved the employers sacrificing the right to petition and tender evidence before the Select Committee it was a very different matter from what they understood would be the case when the question was discussed earlier in the debate. He thought they ought to be assured that all parties would have the fullest opportunity given them of putting forward evidence.
§ MR. HARMOOD-BANNER (Liverpool, Everton)said there was a very strong objection to any scheme under which employers would be compelled to insure against their will. Lines 21 to 29 were now to be omitted, and still they were met by the fact that the Secretary of State might by Provisional Order require all employers in an industry to insure in a specified scheme.
§ * MR. GLADSTONEWe are not on that.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid there was an understanding that it should not be done by Provisional Order. He and his friends thought that the Orders should be made in such a form that they would not be withdrawn from the cognisance of the House. The whole point would be met if the right hon. Gentleman would say that the rules should be laid before the House.
§ MR. RAWLINSONsaid he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not give the Amendment the go-by because of a misunderstanding. All that was intended on his side of the House was that the mode of procedure should be altered, but no one had the idea that a blank cheque should be given to the Secretary of State to include in the schedule any disease he thought fit-without any reference whatever to the House. He submitted that the alteration now proposed would place too wide a power in the hands of the Home Secretary.
§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the way the Government at first proposed to proceed was by Provisional Order which would give to each party the 1018 power to be heard by a Committee of the House of Commons. The House was opposed to that, and the proposal was withdrawn. An alternative course. was that the Home Secretary should have power to make a simple Order effecting the same object by his own fiat without Parliament formally being given cognizance of it. A somewhat reasonable objection was raised to that.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLASI do not think the point as to how the Order should be made was ever raised.
§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid there was much to be said for the contention that the House should have cognizance of the Orders. The Government had no objection to laying these Orders on the Table of the House. It would not prolong the proceedings. They would be very glad to adopt that course.
§ SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University)said that the statement of the hon. Gentleman was to a certain extent satisfactory, but it was somewhat ambiguous. There were three different classes of Orders. They might give the Home Secretary power to make Orders, and so long as the Orders were within the purview of the Bill they would have all the validity of an Act of Parliament. They might say that the Home Secretary was to make the Orders, and that the Orders were to be laid on the Table of the House. That would give the House no power over the Orders at all. There was a third form of precedure, and that was to lay the Orders on the Table of the House for a certain time, and to say that unless a Motion was made they became valid. He did not know which of these the hem. Member meant by saying that he was prepared to make an alteration in the Bill in regard to Orders.
§ MR. HERBERT SAMUELThe second one.
§ SIR E. CARSONsaid the second one was of absolutely no use. That left the matter practically with the Home Secretary. That was never intended by any suggestion from his side of the House. What they asked was that the method should be adopted of placing the 1019 Orders on the Table of the House, and that unless a Motion was made they should have the validity of and Act of Parliament. That was a reasonable course. Many of the questions as to the results arising out of dangerous trades were very complicated, and he entirely objected to the Home Secretary being given absolute power of legislation
§ in regard to these difficult and controversial matters. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would adopt the course he had suggested.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 47; Noes, 281. (Division List No. 459.)
1021| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F. | Courthope, G. Loyd | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Balcarres, Lord | Davies, David (Montgomery Co | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn A. J.(City Lond.) | Doughty, Sir George | Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Faber, George Denison (York) | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Hamilton, Marquess of | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Valentia, Viscount |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Kimber, Sir Henry | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C.W. | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Rawlinson and Mr. Hicks Beach. |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Parkes, Ebenezer | |
| Cory, Clifford John | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Edwards, Frank (Radnor) |
| Agnew, George William | Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Elibank, Master of |
| Alden, Percy | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas. | Erskine, David C. |
| Ashley, W. W. | Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. | Esmonde, Sir Thomas |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Eve, Harry Trelawney |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Cawley, Sir Frederick | Everett, R. Lacey |
| Baker, Joseph A.(Finsbury, E.) | Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Faber, G. H. (Boston) |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Cheetham, John Frederick | Farrell, James Patrick |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Clarke, C. Goddard | Fell, Arthur |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Cleland, J. W. | Fenwick, Charles |
| Barnard, E. B. | Clough, William | Ferguson. R. C. Munro |
| Barnes, G. N. | Clynes, J. R. | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace |
| Beale, W. P. | Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) | Fuller, John Michael F. |
| Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexham) | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Gibb, James (Harrow) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Cogan, Denis J. | Gill, A. H. |
| Bell, Richard | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Ginnell, L. |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Collins, Sir Wm. J.(St. Pancras, W.) | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn. |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp't) | Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd) | Glover, Thomas |
| Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Goddard, Daniel Ford |
| Bennett, E. N. | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Gooch, George Peabody |
| Bertram, Julius | Cowan, W. H. | Grenwood, G. (Peterborough) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H.(Essex, Romf'rd) | Craig, Herbert J.(Tynemouth) | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Crean, Eugene | Griffith, Ellis J. |
| Billson, Alfred | Cremer, William Randal | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius |
| Black, Arthur W.(Bedfordshire) | Crosfield, A. H. | Hall, Frederick |
| Boland, John | Dalziel, James Henry | Halpin, J. |
| Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Brace, William | Delany, William | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S) | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) |
| Brigg, John | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Hart-Davits, T. |
| Bright, J. A. | Dillon, John | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Doneland, Captain A. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T.(Cheshr) | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Hazel, Dr. A. E. |
| Hedges, A. Paget | Menzies, Walter | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne) |
| Hemmerde, Edward George | Micklem, Nathaniel | Sears, J. E. |
| Henderson, J.M. (Aberdeen, W) | Molteno, Percy Alport | Seddon, J. |
| Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon. S.) | Mond, A. | Shackleton, David James |
| Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Higham, John Sharp | Montagu, E. S. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) |
| Hills, J. W. | Mooney, J.J. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Hodge, John | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Hogan, Michael | Morpeth, Viscount | Silcock, Thomas Ball |
| Holden, E. Hopkinson | Murphy, John | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Murray, James | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Hooper, A. G. | Myer, Horatio | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S. |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Napier, T. B. | Snowdon, P. |
| Hudson, Walter | Newnes, F. (Notts., Bassetlaw) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Idris, T. H. W. | Nicholls, George | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | Nolan, Joseph | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) |
| Jackson, R. S. | Nuttall, Harry | Steadman, W. C. |
| Jacoby, Sir James Alfred | O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid) | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Jenkins, J. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Johnson, John (Gateshead) | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | O'Hare, Patrick | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | Sullivan, Donal |
| Jowett, F. W. | O'Malley, William | Summerbell, T. |
| Kearley, Hudson E. | O'Mara, James | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Kekewich, Sir George | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Kelley, George D. | Parker, James (Halifax) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Partington, Oswald | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Kincaid-Smith, Captain | Paul, Herbert | Tillett, Louis John |
| King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) | Tomkinson, James |
| Laidlaw, Robert | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Toulmin, George |
| Lambert, George | Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Lamont, Norman | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Ure, Alexander |
| Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) | Pirie, Duncan V. | Wadsworth, J. |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Pollard, Dr. | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Power, Patrick Joseph | Walsh, Stephen |
| Lough, Thomas | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | Walters, John Tudor |
| Lundon, W. | Price, Robert Hn. (Norfolk, E.) | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Lutterell, Hugh Fownes | Radford, G. H. | Wardle, George J. |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'bs) | Raphael, Herbert H. | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Maclean, Donald | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Redmond, William; (Clare) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Rees, J. D. | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Macpherson, J. T. | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) | Richardson, A. | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) | Ridsdale, E. A. | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| M'Callum, John M. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Wiles, Thomas |
| M'Crae, George | Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| M'Kenna, Reginald | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Williamson, A. |
| M'Killop, W. | Robinson, S. | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| M'Micking, Major G. | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Maddison, Frederick | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Runciman, Walter | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | |
| Massie, J. | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | |
| Meagher, Michael | Schwann, Sir C.E.(Manchester) |
§ * MR. GLADSTONEsaid that the Amendment he was about to move was to take the place of the provision proposed to be struck out from line 2l to line 29. The history of that provision was that in the Standing Committee an Amendment was brought forward by his hon. friend the Member or Newcastle-under-Lyme. He did not think the hon. Gentleman would would press it, and made only a very 1022 brief speech. Nobody else rose and, the Question being put immediately, the Government were defeated by twenty-two to twenty-one. Hon. Members would see that the provision would not stand the test of criticism. It was obvious that the Government could not accept a provision giving power to the Secretary of State to compel every employer to insure, subject to a penalty not mentioned in the Bill. There was a 1023 widespread feeling in the Committee, and representations had been made to him from more than one quarter of the House, that those words should be cut out. The representations came principally from the pottery trade in which he was informed the majority of the employers did insure. Personally he saw very great difficulty in putting into operation the scheme he had framed in substitution of the provision, but he did not object to its form when safeguarded by a Provisional Order. The Amendment he proposed left full discretion to the Home Secretary to draw the Provisional Order as he thought best for the case brought before him, and the Order would come in the usual way before Parliament for approval.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 11, line 12, to leave out the words 'any such Order,' and insert, '(7) Where after inquiry held on the application of any employers or workmen engaged in any industry to which this section applies it appears that one or more mutual trade insurance schemes for insuring against the risks under this section have been established for the industry, and that a majority of the employers engaged in that industry are insured against ouch risks in the scheme or in one or other of such schemes, the Secretary of state may by Provisional Order require all employers in that industry to insure in the scheme or in one of other of such schemes upon such terms and under such conditions and subject to such exceptions as may be set forth in the Order. (8) A Provisional Order made under this section.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'Any such Order' stand part of the Bill."
§ * MR. COCHRANEsaid he agreed with the Home Secretary as to the incident which took place upstairs. The provision was sprung on the Committee, and almost at a moment's warning a division was taken and the Government were defeated. But the right hon. Gentleman had followed the tactics pursued by the Committee on that occasion having brought forward this Amendment at brief notice. He thought that there were certain faults in drafting the new provision. The right hon. Gentleman said that it dealt with questions which arose in the pottery districts; but the provision would have a wider application than the right hon. Gentleman suggested. The clause as it 1024 was drawn would apply to any of the trades in the schedule of the Bill, and he directed attention to one enormous industry, that of mining, which might be brought in. In the mining industry there were large mutual indemnity companies in which employers were associated for the purpose of insuring themselves against payment of compensation for accidents. They admitted to the associations only those employers who were solvent and took reasonable precautions to safeguard their employees against accidents. The pits were inspected to see that they were up to the standard of other employers, which hon. Members would agree was a very desirable thing. Under this Amendment the Home Secretary would have power to force these mutual indemnity associations to admit those whom they would otherwise leave out. That was a serious power for the Home Secretary to take. He thought it would be better, as the clause had been drafted to meet the particular case of the Potteries, to defer dealing with the question until after the inquiry which the right hon. Gentleman had promised. The matter should be dealt with as a whole, and in a comprehensive manner.
§ MR. J. WARDsupported the Amendment of the Home Secretary and hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would press it with all the weight of his authority. The workmen in the district which he represented were exceptionally interested in this business and in this particular clause, which was first of all introduced in the principal Bill, and under no circumstances would they look with favour upon the exclusion of the principle, although they were not wedded to the words as they appeared in the Bill. They thought that the words of the Home Secretary embodied an improved and clearer way of carrying the principle into effect. He would like to say why it was that the workmen were so much in favour of this particular principle in the pottery trade. Without it it would be impossible to expect insurance and compensation from many of the smallest employers whom it forced to join insurance societies. It worked not only for the purpose of obtaining compensation, but its effect was more marked in 1025 the reduction of the number of cases of disease, which after all was the most important question for the. House to consider. The ordinary insurance company in cases of increased risk merely raised the rates of premium and cared very little what the methods of working might be or about anything of that kind. In the mutual insurance companies, however, it was different. Those companies met together once a month and took into consideration all the cases which had been reported in their particular trade during the month. By this means they found after a month or two the factories in which disease was prevalent. The Home Secretary and his officials claimed that the reduction of disease in the pottery trade was entirely due to their orders and efforts, but the workmen claimed—he was not saying whether they were right or wrong—that it was the mutual insurance system which had brought about the reduction more than the orders of the Secretary of State. The mutual insurance company had as their chairman an expert in the use of lead, who knew more about lead poisoning than any other man in the country. If at the end of a month it was seen that a certain pottery had a higher percentage of lead poisoning or illness from some cause or other, the chairman would be deputed to visit those works. He would inquire into the way in which lead was dealt with, the way in which they mixed it, and a hundred and one other things in order to see whether the latest methods were adopted, and he would keep on visiting the place until it was brought up to the standard necessary for the safety of the people employed. Therefore under the mutual system they had not only a guarantee that the money would be paid, but the benefit of the efforts of a number of persons who were interested in reducing the number of cases of disease. That system had had a very salutary effect. They were not so much interested as workmen in providing compensation as in preventing the diseases altogether. The workmen had had an opportunity of trying the system, and they were agreed that these periodical inspections of the employers themselves, who were responsible for the payment of the 1026 compensation, had resulted in a reduction in the number of cases of lead poisoning. That he thought was a substantial argument in favour of the proposed Amendment, and under those circumstances he hoped that upon no consideration whatever the right hon. Gentleman would recede from the position he had taken up. First of all, it secured that the compensation would be paid, because the small potter would have to join in the scheme of insurance. The important point was to see that the mutual business was properly conducted, and met the requirements of the Home Office, and, that Department having satisfied themselves that the method proposed was the best way to compel the smaller employer to join the scheme and to reduce the mortality to the lowest possible minimum, it should be carried into effect.
§ MR. SAMUEL ROBERTS (Sheffield, Ecclesall)said he was entirely in sympathy with the principle of mutual insurance, and he spoke with experience, being a director of one of these societies. He thought the system had proved very satisfactory and had worked extremely well. It must be remembered that most of these large industrial mutual societies in the colliery districts included the bulk of the colliery owners of the district, and that they made very particular inquiries in regard to any applications to join. This Amendment, however, gave the Home Office power to force an employer to join one of these mutual societies whether the society was willing or not, without any agreement, and simply on the terms laid down by the Home Secretary. These societies had large reserve funds, and it would not be fair to force them to admit an employer without some negotiation or consultation with the directors of the company as to the terms on which that employer should be admitted. If the Home Secretary would add the words "and subject to the consent of the society" he did not think there would be much objection to the Amendment.
§ LORD BALCARRES (Lancashire, Chorley)said it was obvious that this Amendment originated in the Midlands in connection with a particular industry, 1027 and he was quite prepared to take it from the hon. Member for Stoke that some such Amendment as this would be of use to that industry. He, however, wished to emphasise the effect which these great mutual insurance societies which now existed in the colliery districts had had. At the present moment they could pay compensation for everything, inside or outside the schedule of this Bill. They were not limited to accidents, they might or might not be universal in their character. The reason that they did not include all the owners of collieries was that if an association of this kind allowed the owner of a badly managed mine to join they would imperil the funds which had been gathered together by the proprietors and managers of well managed collieries. To take an extreme case, no colliery owner who used gunpowder in his mine was allowed to join one of these societies. The effect of the exclusion of all badly managed collieries had been the creation of large reserves, and if there was a disaster, which God forbid, the survivors and the widows of all those killed by the disaster could be paid at once. By excluding badly managed, badly ventilated, and badly controlled mines, and refusing their owners the opportunity of joining the societies, they had raised the standard of efficiency and protection of life and limb in all the mines in Lancashire. They had had this good effect on the management of the collieries. If a particular mine returned cases for compensation in excess of what the percentage should be week after week, the owner of that particular mine was visited by a representative of the society, who inquired how it was that there was so high a percentage of accidents in the mine, and who insisted upon whatever was wrong in the management of that mine being put right. The result was a complete system of inspection. There was inspection by the Home Office officials, by the trade union, by the owner, and finally by the insurance society, and all that tended to raise the standard of efficiency. All this time, owing to the absence of serious accidents, large reserves had been accumulated by these societies, and the levy paid on every £100 worth of coal raised was being annually lowered. But these reserve funds were created by and belonged to a group of 1028 employers, the persons who would have to pay compensation for injury, and now the Government proposed to remove from these persons the total and complete control over the funds which they themselves had collected. That was wrong and indefensible from any point of view. It was private money, and the Government, by this Amendment, was taking the right to deal with and manage it. As to the procedure contemplated by the Amendment, he did not think any single employer or any single workman ought to have the right to apply to come under this section. It ought to be some accredited body of either. Then the expression "the majority of the employers" by no means always connoted the majority of the employees. The one must be made to harmonise and co-ordinate, to some extent at all events, with the other. The Provisional Order was an Act of Parliament, and had to go through all the stages, although with, less formality, that other public Acts had to go through. It was introduced and passed through both Houses under the direct responsibility of the Government. Although no one was more in favour of mutual insurance than he was, he really disapproved on principle of the whole of this scheme. He asked the House to consider the power that would be invested in the Secretary of State. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman would have to proceed by Provisional Order, but he might require all employees in any particular industry to insure in any particular scheme upon such terms and conditions, and subject to such exceptions, as he, through his Provisional Order, might determine. The Amendment unquestionably took away from the insurance companies the control of their business. It enabled the Home Secretary to insist, for instance, that a mine-owner, who had been refused on account of the unsafe condition of his mine, should be taken into a particular insurance scheme. The proper course for the Home Secretary in such a case was to make that man bring his business up to the proper standard so as to justify the insurance company in admitting him. He feared the Amendment would seriously injure the whole system of mutual insurance, which had grown up and prospered 1029 under private enterprise without the interference of the State.
§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that no point had caused the framers of the Bill more anxious trouble than this question of mutual insurance, and the only reason for the delay in putting the Amendment on the Paper was that they were in consultation with persons interested in the matter. There were certain advantages in the insurance schemes that were contemplated which might make it desirable for the House, to consent to this proposal. In the first place it avoided the difficulty of proceeding against a number of employers where a man was suffering from a disease of gradual growth and had been in several employments. In such a case the mutual insurance company would pay and no complication would arise. In the second place, the workman was safeguarded in case of the bankruptcy of the employee. Thirdly, as the hon. Member for Stoke had very ably pointed out, the company made it its business to bring up to a proper standard the safety of places of employment which wore backward in that respect. These were the reasons why the Government asked the House to grant these powers. The application of this provision for mutual insurance was most carefully safeguarded. Before it was put into force a majority of the employers concerned must be insured in the scheme, thereby showing their confidence in it; there must be an inquiry at which the whole matter would be fully discussed; the Home Secretary's sanction was required and he, of course, would most carefully consider the scheme before he pledged his credit to it; and, finally, it must have the sanction of Parliament. He did not think they could introduce more effective precautions against abuse of the powers given in the proposal. An hon. Member had said that one workman or employer could set the machinery in motion. That was not so; he could ask the Home Secretary to set the machinery in motion, but there was nothing to prevent the Home Secretary, if he thought it was a frivolous request, saying "no," and the right hon. Gentleman would say so if he thought the request was frivolous. So long as the present Home Secretary held the office 1030 he was sure these powers would be exercised in a reasonable spirit, and he would not allow his hand to be forced where only one or two in a particular trade desired to bring the proposal into operation. The noble Lord had complained of the expression "the majority of the employers." It was the employers as individuals who were concerned. These were the men who had to pay the compensation, and if they said "the majority of the workpeople," it would mean that perhaps half a dozen large employers might be able to coerce forty or fifty smaller employers, if they had the consent of the Home Secretary and Parliament. The matter of the reserve funds would be decided in a business-like manner, as the circumstances of the case required, and the House might be perfectly certain that the Home Secretary would not dream of putting this sub-section into force unless the company concerned was willing to accept persons who were outside. So certain was that, and so decided was his right hon. friend on the point, that he had no hesitation in inserting the words "and that the managers of the scheme assent." At another stage the word "society" would have to be substituted for "scheme"—merely to improve the wording of the paragraph. Of course the House might rest assured that before exercising these powers, the Home Secretary would thoroughly assure himself that the existing scheme was financially sound in every particular and that the company was willing to accept outside employers on reasonable terms.
§ MR. RAWLINSONattached great weight to the clause. Ha was very much impressed by the arguments of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under Lyme and by the substance of the scheme; but was it fair to all the people interested in the matter that only twenty-four hours notice should have been given of the Government's scheme? Although he took no exception to the Amendment, he would like to indicate certain obvious difficulties raised in the debate which had not been met by the Government. The Under-Secretary had very fairly met the point about 1031 the managers of a society not wishing to have a small man in. Might there not be the converse case? A small man might not be able to raise sufficient money to join these very excellent insurance schemes. The Government did not indicate who was to settle the amount of the capital which outsiders would have to put in before they could start an insurance scheme. He thought that in such an important matter it would have been much better if the Government had given longer notice in order that the people most interested might have brought forward their case.
§ * MR. WEDGWOODsaid he desired to thank the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University for the way in which he had spoken of this scheme. The Bill introduced a new principle into compensation, and one particularly required under the clause now under discussion, which allowed a man to claim from his last employer, and gave that employer the light to claim back from a previous employer, or from any employer in whose service the disease was originally caused. This scheme of collective insurance allowed them to get over that difficulty and the disease was thus charged against the whole industry. Clause 8 was based upon an experiment carried out in the pottery trade during the last five years. The special rules introduced as the result of Lord James's arbitration had resulted in compensation for lead poisoning in, the pottery trade and special regulations, with a consequent very large reduction in the cases of lead poisoning. In 1899 there were 243 cases, but last year the number had fallen to sixty eight. That showed very substantial progress, and that was what the hon. Member for Stoke indicated when he said that the mutual insurance schemes greatly reduced the cases coming upon them. He asked a director of one of these societies the other day to give a description of the scheme and he called it a "collective insurance scheme." That was what it was—not a mutual scheme. The workman did not came in at all. Every employer was compelled to pay a certain proportion of wages into a common fund, and that common fund was either put 1032 aside or paid out as compensation. When a new man entered he either paid his part of the reserve fund if there was one, or he had no claim on the reserve fund and he paid in his annual subscription. It was not a question of forcing a small man to pay a large sum, but it was a case of collective insurance, everybody in the trade insuring his workmen by a tax—not a subscription. Thus it afforded another example of compulsory insurance, though instead of being a national it was only a a trade affair. It was the seed of the German system, which he was so anxious to see introduced all over this country. His main object in supporting the inclusion of this clause in the Bill was not merely to fulfil the wishes of his constituents, though they were extremely keen about it, but to provide a model on which future extensions of insurance might be based.
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURY (City of London)said he did not deny the advantages of the mutual insurance system, but that was not the question before the House. The point before them was the extremely important one whether or not, for the first time in the history of this country, an employer should be forced against his will to enter one of these insurance societies. That was a most important step, and one which the House ought to consider very carefully before taking it. There were fatal objections to the scheme. The hon. Member for Sheffield had already pointed out that the existing insurance companies had large reserve funds. He wished to point out that a premium would have to be paid by a new member entering the society. For instance, an employer on application to the Home Secretary might be told that he would have to join some society. He would pass by for the moment the question whether the society was solvent or not. On application to the society that man might be told that he would have to pay £5.000.
§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUELasked if any Home Secretary would be likely to do' that?
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURYasked if they were expected to make laws and 1033 regulations upon the assumption that any particular Home Secretary would not cause them to be put into force? They had to consider carefully what duties and powers they were conferring upon the Home Secretary. In the case he had given, if the man objected to pay the sum demanded, the House Secretary would have the power to say to him, "You have got to pay that sum, and I insist upon it." Had there ever been such a law introduced into this country before? With regard to the question of the solvency of these companies, he claimed to speak with some knowledge, having had considerable experience of a big superannuation fund. Many of the funds were not solvent, and the hon. Member opposite knew that it was extremely difficult so to manage those funds that they would be solvent in years to come. They were now face to face with the position that the Home Secretary was to be the judge, not only as to how much a man was to pay to enter, but also as to whether the society was solvent. He maintained that an employer ought not to be forced against his will to pay a large premium, because he might have very good reasons for thinking that a particular society was not solvent, although he would not like to state his reasons. There was also the objection that if a bad employer who conducted his business carelessly was admitted into the society, he might destroy the actuarial valuation that had been made of the society at the time he was admitted. They would compel it man to become a member, and he did not see how they could make that employer change his methods. He might have good reasons for thinking the society was not solvent, yet he would be compelled to enter it and pay, perhaps, the accumulated savings of two or three years in order to become a member. The Amendment would be an excellent one if made voluntary, but to make it compulsory would upset the principle and ruin the whole scheme. He urged the Government not to press the Amendment at the present stage.
§ * SIR CHARLES DILKEsaid the question of insurance was raised on the 1034 Second Reading because it was felt that it could not be adequately raised on the later stages of the Bill. That continued to be his view, and while he did not wish to offer any opposition to the proposal of his hon. friend, he wished to put in a caveat on behalf of himself and many of his friends and to say that it was to be understood that there was no intention, in advance of the inquiry which was to be made, of treating this as a stereotyped form to be adopted. All that they need do on this occasion was to put on record that they were by no means jumping at the proposal. They accepted it as an experimental scheme. He was sure it would be thoroughly understood that they were not binding themselves, and that the question would be open for consideration in the future after the inquiry.
§ MR. PARKES (Birmingham, Central)said one of the great objections to this clause was that it introduced the element of compulsory insurance in a particular society. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent had argued that this Amendment would ensure proper inspection of the different works in connection with a particular trade. He held that it would defeat that object, because if the management of the insurance society determined that a particular firm should not come in, that firm would not come in. If there were firms prohibited from coming into the society, that element would be left out which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent desired to get in, namely, the small employers. Their works would be the places where imperfect drainage or sanitation, or whatever it might be, would be most likely to occur. In the matter of joining the society why should compulsion be meted out to one section of the community and not to the whole? He could understand compulsory insurance, but he could not understand compulsion to insure in a particular society. An employer should be free to insure in what he considered a perfectly safe society, but the proposal here was one which would interfere with the liberty of the individual.
§ Question put.
1036§ The House divided:—Ayes, 36; Noes, 263. (Division List No. 460.)
1037| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F. | Fell, Arthur | Salter, Arthur Clavell |
| Ashley, W. W. | Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Balcarres, Lord | Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashford) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. | Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark) |
| Boyle, Sir Edward | Kimber, Sir Henry | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Bright, J. A. | King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Magnus, Sir Philip | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Cave, George | Morpeth, Viscount | Younger, George |
| Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | |
| Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Randles, Sir John Scurrah | Frederick Banbury and |
| Courthope, G. Loyd | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne | Mr. Parkes. |
| Doughty, Sir George | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Crean, Eugene | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) |
| Agnew, George William | Cremer, William Randal | Henry, Charles S. |
| Alden, Percy | Crooks, William | Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.) |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Crosfield, A. H. | Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Dalziel, James Henry | Higham, John Sharp |
| Balfour, Robert (Lanark) | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Hills, J. W. |
| Banner, John S. Harmood- | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Hodge, John |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hogan, Michael |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Delany, William | Holden, E. Hopkinson |
| Barnard, E. B. | Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) | Holland, Sir William Henry |
| Barnes, G. N. | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N.) | Hooper, A. G. |
| Beale, W. P. | Dillon, John | Horniman, Emslie John |
| Beaumont, Hn. W. C. B. (Hexham) | Dobson, Thomas W. | Hudson, Walter |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Idris, T. H. W. |
| Bell, Richard | Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Bellairs, Carylon | Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt) | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Jacoby, Sir James Alfred |
| Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.) | Elibank, Master of | Jenkins, J. |
| Bennett, E. N. | Esmonde, Sir Thomas | Johnson, John (Gateshead) |
| Bertram, Julius | Eve, Harry Trelawney | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd) | Everett, R. Lacey | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) |
| Billson, Alfred | Faber, G. H. (Boston) | Jowett, F. W. |
| Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire) | Farrell, James Patrick | Kearley, Hudson E. |
| Boland, John | Fenwick, Charles | Kekewich, Sir George |
| Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) | Ferguson, R. C. Munro | Kelley, George D. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace | Kennedy, Vincent Paul |
| Brace, William | Fuller, John Michael F. | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Fullerton, Hugh | Laidlaw, Robert |
| Brigg, John | Gibbs, James (Harrow) | Lambert, George |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Gill, A. H. | Lamont, Norman |
| Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) | Ginnell, L. | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) |
| Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire) | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert Jn. | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Glover, Thomas | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Burnyeat, W. J. D. | Goddard, Daniel Ford | Lough, Thomas |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Gooch, George Peabody | Lundon, W. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Lupton, Arnold |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Griffith, Ellis J. | Luttrell, Hugh Fownes |
| Clarke, C. Goddard | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs) |
| Cleland, J. W. | Hall, Frederick | Maclean, Donald |
| Clough, William | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift |
| Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) | Hardy, George A. (Suffolk) | Macpherson, J. T. |
| Cogan, Denis J. | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Hart-Davies, T. | MacVeigh, Chas. (Donegal, E.) |
| Collins, Sir W. J. (S. Pancras, W.) | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | M'Callum, John M. |
| Corbett, C.H. (Sussex, E. Grinstd) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | M'Crae, George |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Hayden, John Patrick | M'Kenna, Reginald |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Hedges, A. Paget | M'Killop, W. |
| Cowan, W. H. | Hemmerde, Edward George | M'Micking, Major G. |
| Maddison, Frederick | Price, Robert John(Norfolk, E.) | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) |
| Manfield, Harry (Northants) | Radford, G. H. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln) | Raphael, Herbert H. | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro) | Sullivan, Donal |
| Massie, J. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Summerbell, T. |
| Menzies, Walter | Redmond, William (Clare) | Taylot, John W. (Durham) |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Rees, J. D. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Richards, T. F.(Wolverh'mpt'n) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Mond, A. | Richardson, A. | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) |
| Money, L. G. Chiozza | Rickett, J. Crompton | Tomkinson, James |
| Montagu, E. S. | Ridsdale, E. A. | Toulmin, George |
| Mooney, J. J. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Ure, Alexander |
| Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Wadsworth, J. |
| Morse, L. L. | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) | Walker, H. De R. (Leicester) |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Robinson, S. | Walsh, Stephen |
| Murphy, John | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Walters, John Tudor |
| Murray, James | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Myer, Horatio | Rose, Charles Day | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Napier, T. B. | Runciman, Walter | Wardle, George J. |
| Nicholls, George | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Nolan, Joseph | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) | Wedgwood, Josiah C. |
| Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Nuttall, Harry | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary, Mid) | Schwann, Sir C. E. (M'nchester) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| O'Hare, Patrick | Sears, J. E. | Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) |
| O'Kelly, James (Roscommon,N.) | Seaverns, J. H. | Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer |
| O'Malley, William | Seddon, J. | Wiles, Thomas |
| O'Mara, James | Shackleton, David James | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) | Williamson, A. |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.) | Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.) |
| Partington, Oswald | Sherwell, Arthur James | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Paul, Herbert | Shipman, Dr. John G. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Silcock, Thomas Ball | Winfrey, R. |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | |
| Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whitley and Mr. J. A. Pease. |
| Pollard, Dr. | Snowdon, P. | |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Soares, Ernest J. | |
| Price, C.E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | Spicer, Sir Albert |
Motion made, and Question, "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned,"—(Mr. Secretary Gladstone)—put, and agreed to.
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
§
Proposed Amendment amended—
In line 6, by inserting, after the word 'schemes,' the words 'and that the managers of the scheme consent.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted in the Bill."
* SIR JOHN BRINNER (Cheshire, Northwich)said that he had naturally, as a large employer of labour, taken a great interest in the question of insurance since the 1st of January, 1881. During the year previous to that date he was solicited many times to effect insurance against the Employers'. Liability Act. From the first up to now he had refused to insure, because he wished to secure to every workman in the employment of his company the full amount of compensation due to 1038 them without the interference of any insurance company coming between him and them. It was fatal to good feeling between employer and workman if an insurance company, which desired to make a profit out of the transaction, stood between them and could say at its own sweet will whether the workmen should have to fight for their compensation or not. During twenty-six years experience every man in the employment of his company who had been injured, whether he had been negligent or not, had been paid full compensation without any possible expenditure in litigation. He wanted to know after that experience whether he was to be obliged to place an insurance company between his company and their workmen. If he read the words of the Amendment aright, and he thought he had some intelligence, the Secretary of State would have the power to compel every employer in a trade to enter into an insurance scheme.
§ * MR. GLADSTONEOnly if a majority of the employers in the trade desire it.
* SIR JOHN BRUNNERsaid he strongly objected to any Government, or anyone else, compelling him to insure if he did not wish to do so. He wanted to have the whole responsibility for the safety of the lives and limbs of the men "employed by his company, and nobody to interfere between them. The results of his refusal not to insure had been of the happiest description. There were a hundred men alive to-day who would not have been alive had he, by being compelled to insure, been relieved of all responsibility. The object of Parliament should be to put the responsibility on the employers, and to make sure that they used their best efforts to prevent accidents. Insurance took away from employers the wholesome sense of responsibility. He begged the right hon. Gentleman, when he found people right-minded enough to use their best efforts to prevent accidents, to leave to them the freedom which had been enjoyed hitherto with such happy results; and not to force upon them any insurance which would destroy existing pleasant relations. Another great benefit from non-insurance was that in twenty-six years his company had never had an action brought against them, either by an individual workman or a trade union; and every penny which had been due to a workman or his representatives as compensation had been paid to the full with a cheerful heart.
§ MR. WOLFF (Belfast, E.)said the firm he represented was in the same position as that of the hon. Member who had just spoken. They used to insure years ago, and they found it led to continuous litigation and fighting. They stopped insuring and found it led to the happiest results. He wanted to know whether under the Amendment they would be compelled in the future to insure in some scheme or other. He would much sooner not, and he thought the men would be much better without it and disputes would be avoided. He hoped that whatever the Amendment did it would not compel to insure, any responsible firm which now carried on work without insuring against accidents. 1040 He hoped he might be mistaken in thinking that the existing state of affairs was to be disturbed.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 11, to leave out lines 21 to 29 inclusive."—(Mr. Gladstone.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL moved to add the following sub-section, "(7) Nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a workman to recover compensation in respect of a disease to which this section does not apply if the disease is a personal injury by accident within the meaning" of this Act." He said the Amendment was merely proposed for the sake of greater caution. The class of cases which he had in his mind were such cases as sudden poisoning by sewer gas or sudden fuming in chemical works. This under the present law would probably be held by a Court to be an accident just as anthrax had been so held. Now, however, by this Bill they had put anthrax and several other illnesses into a category of diseases, and the Court might hold that since diseases had been put in the word "accident" might mean some violent injury to life or limb, and that therefore death by sewer gas was not an accident. By that means a man might be wrongly deprived of compensation.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In line 11, line 32, at the end, to add, '(7) Nothing in this section shall affect the rights of a workman to recover compensation in respect of a disease to which this section does not apply if the disease is a personal injury by accident within the meaning of this Act.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
§ * MR. GLADSTONEformally moved to insert the proviso "Provided that in the case of a person employed in the private service of the Grown, the head of that department of the Royal Household in which he was employed at the time of the accident shall be deemed to be his employer." The right hon. Gentleman said that he 1041 did not think he need explain the necessity for this Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 11, line 36, at the end, to insert, 'Provided that in the case of a person employed in the private service of the Crown, the head of that department of the Royal Household in which he was employed at the time of the accident shall be deemed to be his employer.'"— (Mr. Gladstone.)
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 12, line 7, at the end, to insert, 'Where a medical referee has been employed as a medical practitioner in connection with any case by or on behalf of either party or by any insurers interested, he shall not act as medical referee in that case.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
§ MR. HICKS BEACH moved the omission of Clause 12, which it seemed to him was quite unnecessary and only authorised the Government to obtain certain information for statistical purposes. Under the Factory and Workshops Act and the Notification of Accidents Act the Government could obtain any information which they might require. He particularly objected to the words of the clause providing that the employer, in addition to specifying the number of injuries and the compensation paid, should do so "together with such other particulars as the Secretary of State may direct." He thought that opened up a very wide field. Already the employers in the great centres of production had to furnish the Government with a great number of returns, and to add to them would, he thought, prove embarassing.
§ * SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)seconded, and said it seemed to him that the clause inflicted a most unnecessary and severe burden on employers. It was quite true that under existing legislation the employers had to report accidents of a grave character, and that provision no one could take exception to, but he did not think they should be called upon to notify accidents of a trivial or insignificant character. He could not see what 1042 benefit would arise to commerce by insisting upon this provision, the carrying out of which must involve cost to the employer.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
Page 13, leave, out clause 12."—(Mr. Hicks Beach.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ * MR. GLADSTONEsaid that he had received deputations representing all kinds of industries, and he could not recall any representation made to him in respect of this clause. The representatives of the employers were quite ready to accept it, and, after all, it was not a very serious demand. The clause only gave power to the Home Office to collect information which it was really necessary to ascertain. They did not ask the employers to report every accident to the Home Office, nor did they ask them to report any accident covered by the Notice of Accidents Bill of this session. All they asked was that they should give the total number of injuries sustained by their own workpeople for which compensation had been paid and the amount of compensation. Surely that was not unreasonable? He had no doubt that if hon. Gentlemen examined into this question in the case of France or Belgium they would find that this information was afforded, and why should not this country have it? It was not merely in the interests of the Government to have these statistics. They were for the use of Parliament, the country and the employers themselves, and they would be failing in their duty if they did not put in powers enabling them to get the information.
§ * MR. COCHRANEthought that the clause went too far. The words "together with such other particulars as the Secretary of State may direct" were very wide words indeed, and went far beyond calling for any statistics which would give the slightest information or assistance to the Home Office. All the right hon. Gentleman desired or anybody really wanted was to know how many cases there were under the Workmen's 1043 Compensation Act and how they were settled. In other words, they wanted to know how they were getting on, but an inquisitive Home Secretary or somebody under him might ask all sorts of questions far beyond the statistics really required. He thought the provision that the employers in default of complying with this section should be liable on a summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £5 was quite unnecessary. It would not weaken the general effect of the right hon. Gentleman's clause if he omitted those words. The passing of the Notification of Accidents Act had enormously increased the power of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the notification of accidents, and he thought that under that statute he would get all that was necessary. This clause had alarmed those engaged in certain important industries in the country, and he had received representations from various districts on the subject. He had paid quite as much attention to the question of workmen's compensation as the right hon. Gentleman, and he thought these words unnecessary.
§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that if these words were struck out of the clause it would be very inefficient for its purpose. It would not permit anyone to ascertain the duration of the incapacity, neither would it enable one to ascertain whether it was a case of disease or accident. The clause was not only desirable for the information of Parliament and of students of the question, but also for the sake of the employers themselves, in order that they might see whether the insurance companies were charging reasonable rates. The clause was proposed in the Committee and unanimously accepted. The only point raised in the discussion in Committee had been that it was thought Parliament ought to have more cognisance of this matter, and in order to satisfy that point the Government had put down a further Amendment.
§ MR. CORYcomplained that this clause would put it into the power of the Home Secretary to ask very inquisitorial questions of employers, and, although he agreed that the present Home 1044 Secretary was not likely to do so, the time might come when they had a Secretary of State who would. He hoped, therefore, there would be some amendment of the clause.
§ MR. COURTHOPE (Sussex, Rye)said the Under-Secretary had said that the statistics in these returns would be extremely useful to employers and others in ascertaining the number of accidents which occurred and in finding out whether the rates of insurance were excessive. That was what he gathered from the hon. Gentleman, and surely it was an argument in favour of the Opposition. They wanted something laid down in the Act—if anything was laid down at all—as to the details which might be required in these returns. What was the value of statistics if they could be altered every year at the whim of the Home Secretary?
§ * MR. HERBERT SAMUELHome Secretaries never have whims.
§ MR. COURTHOPEsaid if the Home Secretary had no whims why give him this discretionary power? His Parliamentary experience was short, but so far as it went he thought both Secretaries of State and Under-Secretaries had whims. If the present Home Secretary and Under-Secretary had no whims it might be that some in the future would have, and he could not see, whether they had whims or not, why the House should not lay down hard and fast rules as to the details of the return to be made. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept this Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, Withdrawn
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 13, line 7, to leave out from the word 'compensation' to the word 'and' in line 8."—(Mr. Hicks Beach.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid he desired to second this Amendment, because so far as he could see there was no object to be gained by leaving the 1045 words in. The only object could be to give the Home Secretary a roving commission to inquire into all the details of a man's private business. It was an inquiry he had no right to make, and it ought to be quite sufficient for the proposers of this clause for an employer to state how many accidents had occurred in the course of a year, and how much in compensation he had paid. In order also that these statistics should be of value they must be statistics of the same kind of facts for a period of at least five years, and they must not be liable to be altered at the whim of anybody. It was absurd to suppose that any insurance company would take any notice of an employer who complained that they were charging too high a rate and suggested that they should take less. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
§ * MR. GLADSTONEsaid there need be no fear that any Home Secretary would take fruitless burdens upon himself. The troubles and trials of his office were already sufficiently great. But to meet the objection of hon. Gentlemen opposite he was willing to limit the "other particulars" to the matter of compensation.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. GLADSTONE moved to add after 'other particulars" the words "as to the compensation."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendments proposed to the Bill—
In page 13, line 8, after the word 'particulars' to insert the words 'as to compensation.'
In page 13, line 9, to insert the words, '(2) Any regulations made by the Secretary of State containing such directions as aforesaid shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament as soon as may be after they are made.'" —[Mr. Gladstone.)
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ MR. GLADSTONEsaid the object of inserting the next Amendment was to make it clear that where a farmer lent a workman to another farmer—a common custom in the country—the farmer with whom the workman had entered 1046 into a contract of service should continue to be deemed the employer under the Bill.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 13, line 14, at the end, to insert the words 'and where the services of a workman are temporarily lent or let on hire to another person by the person with whom the workman has entered into a contract of service or apprenticeship, the latter shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to continue to be the employer of the workman whilst he is working for that other person.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
* MR. ELLIS DA VIES (Carnarvonshire, Eifion)said he had some doubt whether the words were sufficiently wide. He would be glad to hear the view of the Solicitor-General on the point. It had been decided by Judge Moss in North Wales that a workman who was lent by one employer to another could not in case of accident be said to be acting in the course of his employment, and could not claim compensation. By the Amendment the original employer was to be deemed to be the employer of the workman even when lent. No one disputed that, but the question was whether the workman could be said to be acting in the course of his employment when he was working for and controlled by and sometimes even paid by another person. In nine out of ten of these cases the question was decided not in the Court but in the solicitor's office. The point was an important one, and he would like the Solicitor-General's opinion as to whether the words now proposed were sufficiently wide to clear away all doubt upon the point.
§ SIR W. ROBSONsaid there was no doubt whatever that this point would be cleared up by the words now proposed. If one employer lent a workman to another, the question might arise as to whose employment the workman was in. If it did, the Amendment said that the man was to be deemed to continue in the employment of the person to whom he had entered into his contract of service. The mere fact that he had been lent meant that he was obeying the 1047 directions of his proper employer. If the Amendment was adopted there could be no legal doubt in the matter.
§ MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)thought the Amendment met the whole case not only from the legal point of view, but also from the point of view of the employer of the labourer. If the lending of a workman to another employer invalidated his claim for compensation it would only be right that under those circumstances the workman should be entitled to refuse to carry out his master's orders.
§ MR. ELLIS GRIFFITH (Anglesey)desired to see some words inserted such as the hon. Member for Chester had on the Paper, to place the relationship of the employer and employed beyond dispute. They had to remember that an eminent judge had given a decision upon this point, and that if quoted in a Court of law would be regarded as being of more importance than the opinion just expressed by the Solicitor-General. It had been laid down as the law that a servant who was lent to another employer should be deemed to be in the employment of the person to whom he was lent. His object was to have the matter made clear, and the only point was whether the Amendment now proposed cleared away all doubts upon the question. He was inclined to think that some such words as those suggested by the hon. Member for Chester were necessary.
§ MR. COURTHOPEsaid the question what was meant by letting a man on hire was important to agricultural labourers, who were lent to sportsmen for beating game or to others for timber felling. Their injuries in the course of such employment would not be covered by the insurance policy of their employer. There were other cases, such as accidents, which might occur when threshing was going on after the harvest. The original employer might find his men put to work of a dangerous kind which he never contemplated, and injuries might result in consequence which would not be covered by the insurance which he had effected. This was a very serious matter for those engaged in agriculture, and the point ought to be made clear quite.
§
MR. MOND moved the addition of the following words to the Amendment—
And any personal injury by accident arising whilst he is working for that other person shall be deemed to have arisen in the course of his employment of the person deemed to be his employer.
He said the words could not do harm and they might do good. They would only mean two or three more lines in the Bill, and as there was some legitimate doubt upon the point dealt with, he thought the words might very well be inserted.
§ MR. KEIR HARDIEseconded the Amendment, and hoped the Home Secretary would see his way to accept it. After the experience of the Licensing Act it was their duty to remove all doubts and all possibility of escape under the Act.
§
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment to the Bill—
At the end to add the words, 'And any personal injury by accident arising whilst he is working for that other person shall be deemed to have arisen in the course of his employment of the person deemed to be his employer.'"—(Mr. Mond.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there added to the proposed Amendment to the Bill."
§ SIR W. ROBSONsaid there could be no doubt when a man did work by the direction of his employer. The addition of the words would only provide material for fresh discussion and would not add to the lucidity or use of the clause. The various points raised by hon. Members were such as the county court judge would determine.
§ MR. MOND,in view of the remarks of the Solicitor-General, begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
§
The following Amendment stood on the Paper in the name of Sir Robert Ropner—
In page 13, lines 15 and 16, to leave out the words 'remunerated by salary at a rate exceeding,' and insert the words 'whose earnings exceed.'
§ * MR. GLADSTONEsaid he could not accept the Amendment in that form, but he would suggest an alternative to the hon. Baronet. He was willing to leave out the words "remunerated by salary at a rate exceeding," and to insert the words, "employed otherwise than by way of manual labour whose remuneration exceeds." He objected to the hon. Baronet's Amendment because it excluded certain workmen who were already entitled to compensation under the Act. There were workmen who could earn more than £5 a week, and they should not be disqualified from enjoying the right which they had under the law. Many of the men who earned high wages were engaged in work which wore them out at an early stage of their life.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 13, lines 15 and 16, to leave out the words 'remunerated by salary at a rate exceeding,' and insert 'employed otherwise than by way of manual labour whose remuneration exceeds.'"—(Mr. Gladstone.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ SIR ROBERT ROPNERsaid the words proposed by the Home Secretary did not quite meet what he desired. What he wished was to avoid litigation in future. They were all perfectly well aware that a man sometimes not only received salary but also commission. Would the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment meet a case of that kind?
§ * MR. GLADSTONEYes.
§ SIR ROBERT ROPNERThen I accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ *MR. COCHRANE moved to exempt outworkers from the clause. He said the effect would be to give outworkers the benefit of the Act. If any persons deserved protection it was those to whom work was given out to be done on premises which did not belong to the person who gave out the work. The Report of the Commission on Sweat- 1050 ing contained innumerable instances of the kind of labour to which these people were subjected. If employers who went in for sweated labour found that by giving work out they could escape paying compensation, there would be a large increase in the amount of work done under these conditions. He saw no reason why the outworkers should not get the benefit of this Bill.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 13, line 20, to leave out the words 'or an outworker.'"—(Mr. Cochrane.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ * MR. GLADSTONEsaid they all sympathised with the object of the hon. Gentleman. The question of outworkers was a very difficult and grave one, and it could not be dealt with under the Workmen's Compensation Bill. It was quite impossible to accept the Amendment. Outworkers took work home to their own rooms where they worked alone, or with the members of their families. The hon. Gentleman had not suggested how they were to prove that an outworker had in the course of his employment received an injury. It was quite impossible, and he very much regretted it. He did not think that the exclusion of outworkers from the Bill would increase sweating. The tendency was to decrease the amount of outwork, and he believed that tendency would continue.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ *MR. H. H. MARKS (Kent, Thanet) moved to leave out from Clause l3 the words "or a domestic servant." This Amendment affected the largest class of workers in the country—mostly composed of women and girls—a class who from the character of their employment and its conditions were most defenceless against the evils which this Bill sought to deal with. He thought it would be admitted that the domestic servants deserved consideration at all hands. They must possess the qualities of fidelity, industry, and loyalty in a high degree. 1051 They were absolutely unorganised. They had no trade union; they had no benefit society; they had no organisation which would enable them to provide against the evils of unemployment and old age, and they had no votes. But he thought that they were not less entitled to consideration at the hands of Parliament than other workers. It was true that it had been customary in old days for employers of domestic servants to make a provision for them in old age, but that class of employer was decreasing in these latter days. There was one important consideration to which he desired to direct attention. Only a small proportion of hon. Members in this Assembly were employers of the workmen who were to receive compensation under this Bill, but there was not one who was not an employer of a domestic servant.
§ MR. KEIR HARDIEThat is not true.
§ * MR. H. H. MARKSsaid that, at any rate, there was scarcely one who was not directly or indirectly an employer of a domestic servant; and it seemed to him that it would be in the highest degree cynical and most regrettable if the Members of the House of Commons were to refuse to their servants the rights and privileges which they were prepared to give to the servants of others.
§
Amendment proposed to the Bill—
In page 13, lines 20 and 21, to leave out the words 'or a domestic servant.'"—(Mr. H. H. Marks.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ VISCOUNT MORPETH (Birmingham, S.)said he was quite aware that the Departmental Committee had reported that it was not desirable to include domestic servants in the provisions of the Bill; but the Report was inconclusive on the question, because they sanctioned the principle by including grooms and coachmen as entitled to compensation. His contention was that the principle should be extended as far as possible. This House frequently accepted a principle, but when it came to apply that principle in legislation they refused to give effect 1052 to it, although there was no ground in justice or logic for that refusal. The Report said that there was little risk run by domestic servants, but that argument was not conclusive, because it was no consolation to a domestic servant when laid up as the result of an accident to be told that the average risk run by a domestic servant was not so great as by a workman in any trade. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment had spoken of domestic servants as being a helpless class who did not belong to any trade union. He knew that many employers did the best they could to support aged servants, and domestic servants as a class spent so much of their youth in supporting near relations that they were deprived of the opportunity of making any provision for themselves in old age. There was another important point which he wished to urge, and that was that the great proportion of these people were women, and this House, which was elected by men, should take care that justice was done to women. When they were making provision for workmen, they should not at the same time callously reject the claims of women. If they were not prepared to do justice to women, that would strengthen their demand to have a vote, in order to insure that justice was done to them in the legislation passed by this House. The only argument which could be urged against the proposal was that it might be a hardship on the small employer; but the House had already deliberately established the principle that in connection with the trade and industry of the country the employer was to be put under an obligation to provide compensation in the case of injury. If that were so in regard to the employer in trade it should be equally so with regard to the private employers. It was said that if it was established that a man should provide compensation for his servants in case of accidents and injury he would consider whether he should not keep fewer servants or indeed keep any at all. Simply that there would be a hardship on the employer was not a sufficient reason why a class of people who were poorly paid and led a hard life should be deprived of compensation or their relatives and 1053 dependents of support. He trusted that the Government would deal properly with a great and deserving class.
§ * MR. GLADSTONEsaid he was afraid the Government could not accept the Amendment. This was the first time the question had been raised; it did not come before the Grand Committee. Accidents among domestic servants were extremely few in number, and though that was the case every employer would have to insure. The risk being extremely low the premium, on the other hand, was almost certain to be high. As a matter of fact, the premium charged would be altogether out of proportion to the risk run because of the cost of collection and agency, and it would hardly prove remunerative. There must be in the country something like 2,000,000 domestic servants, and a vast number of them, probably 1,000,000, in single service. Was he to be told that that vast army of people would insure their servants? Domestic servants were to be treated on an entirely different footing from workmen in the general industry of the country. He agreed that there were harsh employers of servants in many cases, but servants were generally well treated, and even with a harsh employer a servant if he got injured had his wages paid while he was ill. ["Oh."] That was his opinion, and he had never known a case of an injured servant who did not receive medical assistance, and whose wages were not paid and who was not looked after until she recovered. It was impossible, having regard to the treatment servants usually experienced, to bring this vast army of people within the provisions of the workmen's compensation law. There were, however, classes of servants, not necessarily domestic servants, who ought to be considered. He had put down an Amendment under which servants employed at hotels, inns, restaurants, and clubs would be brought within the purview of the Act. He could not accept the Amendment.
§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)thought the Government's decision on this matter was quite wrong. The Home Secretary in the observations which he had made had pledged himself to an 1054 illogical proposition. He said that every one of the 2,000,000 servants if they were injured were paid their wages.
§ * MR. GLADSTONEI never said so. I said that the vast majority of employers treated their servants well, and that I had never known a case in which wages were not paid.
§ LORD R. CECILventured to think that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong. It was true that the right hon. Gentleman and people like him treated their servants well, but the great majority of servants who were general servants led hard lives—far harder than the ordinary artisan. To say that they ran no risk of serious injury was not true. He did not see why the premiums should be high. The business would be a large one with small risks. The Bill convinced him more strongly than he would otherwise have been convinced of the urgent necessity of the enfranchisement of women.
§ SIR W. ROBSONsaid it was possible to have a high premium with a low risk. There were no statistics of the accidents that happened to domestic servants, but there was reason to believe that they were not numerous. The premium, however, in such a case depended less on the amount of the risk than on the cost of inducing people to insure and other expenses. It was worth remembering that, after all, this legislation was devised in order to deal with industrial occupations upon a large scale. The further they went in bringing small employers under the Act the more difficult became its application.
§ MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid the same arguments were used against the inclusion of the single workman in a small workshop or the single assistant in a shop, but both those classes had been brought under the Bill, and why should the servant alone be left out? If he did not belong to the class which employed servants he belonged to the people from whom servants were drawn, and he could assure the House that a larger number of accidents occurred to servants than seemed to be believed. As to the difficulty of insuring 1055 it must be remembered that before the Act tame into operation arrangements were to be made for insurance through the Post Office. As everyone else had been included in the Bill he hoped they would not leave out the poor domestic servant.
§ MR. HARMOOD-BANNERassured the right hon. Gentleman that if he inquired among his own domestic servants, and particularly of people who could afford to have only one servant, he would find that most of the employers and their servants were insured in one or other of the great industrial insurance societies like the Royal Liverpool Friendly Society and the Prudential. He, therefore, did not see the slightest difficulty in bringing domestic servants within the scope of the Bill, nor did he see any difficulty as regarded the question of cost. Anyone who had seen the premiums demanded for accident policies by these societies would find that for about ten shillings he could insure all his servants. They had a right to ask the Government to look at this question with a more open mind. Almost everybody else who worked had been included within the benefits of the Bill, and it seemed extraordinary that a House which was so generous as regarded compensation to others should hesitate when it came to the enormous class of domestic servants, who could be insured for a small cost, and who required the insurance because of their poverty. They could rely upon insurance companies meeting the want. There was no reason, except that these poor people had no votes, why the Government should refuse to give them these benefits.
§ SIR FREDERICK CAWLEY (Lancashire, Prestwich)hoped the Home Secretary would leave this question to the House. He was sure a large section on the Ministerial side were entirely in favour of the Amendment. They were in favour of meting out the same measure of justice to the unrepresented classes of labour as they were to those represented in the House. So far as the insurance went, he did not think there ought to be any difficulty. 1056 If the insurance premium was 10s. per £100 of wages it would come to a very small amount in the case of a servant earning only £20 a year. He had no doubt some insurance companies would spring up which would make this their special line and tour for business. For the first time during the progress of this Bill the Government was considering more the convenience of the employer than the good of the workman. Every class of labour, whether domestic or other, ought to have the benefit of this Bill. The Government were already providing that servants employed in manufactures ought to be included, but apparently their view was that servants employed for pleasure or to save their masters doing their own work ought to be excluded from the Bill. In his opinion servants employed for pleasure ought to be in the same position as those employed for profit.
§ SIR J. RANDLES (Cumberland, Cockermouth)pointed out that the value of this Bill largely lay in its preventive nature, inasmuch as it would cause extra precautions to be taken which would make it safer for people to follow their employment. Though the amount of the premium in single servant households would be very small, yet there would be a tendency if this Amendment were carried to exercise in many households more care than would be otherwise taken. A large number of houses had ricketty staircases and awkward passages, and the tendency of the Amendment would be to remove these inconveniences. The great value of such an Amendment would be that the domestic life of millions of servant girls-would be made safer and pleasanter. For this reason very largely he should support the Amendment.
§ MR. MACLEAN (Bath)joined in the appeal to the Government to leave this question to the decision of the House. What impressed him most was that domestic service was by far the largest class of employment in the country, and they were expressly excepting that class from the benefits of the Bill. The arguments which liberals had 1057 sometimes used to commend this Bill as compared with the Bills passed by Conservative Governments was that the Government included everybody, with certain exceptions, whereas the late Government excluded everybody, with certain exceptions. It seemed to him a somewhat illiberal proposition to exclude from the operation of the Bill the largest body of persons in the country.
§ MR. HUGH LAW (Donegal, W.)joined in the appeal to the Government. He was sorry to say it was proposed to make two very big exceptions in the Bill. It had been determined to exclude outworkers, and so increase the temptation and put a premium on sweating. It was too late, however, to go back upon that, but he did hope they would not exclude another great class as was now proposed.
§ * MR. CORYsaid be would like to join in the request to the Government to include domestic servants in the Bill. He could not see why they should be excluded. They had an equal claim with employees in hotels, whom the Government said they intended to include.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL- BANNERMANthought it might tend to shorten the proceedings if he said a few words. In excluding domestic servants from the scope of the Bill the Government surely followed a good example. During the last Parliament right hon. Gentlemen opposite who were now so feverishly anxious to admit domestic servants, all; the poor servants especially, to this privilege, brought in a Bill for the same purpose of giving workmen compensation, and they deliberately omitted from the Bill the very class whom they were now so anxious to include. His right hon. friend had been probably led astray by his desire to follow the pattern 1058 set by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Everyone must sympathise with the whole class of domestic servants. They were apt to think, however, of their own homes, and the footing upon which he hoped they all treated the servants who worked in those homes, and there was a natural feeling that if they were put into the relationship which was suggested it might tend to invalidate that healthy arrangement which was most pleasant as well as the most effective way of securing what hon. Members aimed at. That was one consideration. Then his right hon. friend had joined with the Solicitor-General in thinking that the insurance would be difficult to accomplish and be burdensome in some cases to those who took part in it—at any rate, there was a danger of it. They were apt—at least he spoke for himself—to think of the class of servants who were well off. But there were probably few people in the country worse off than the poorer class of servants, who were often treated, he was afraid, with great hardship, probably in many cases with necessary hardship, because there was nothing but hardship in the houses in which they were employed. Reviewing the whole question, he thought his right, hon. friend would be well advised to admit this class, and he thought he could do so and still hold up his head. He did not think it was a matter that should be left to the House, as it was called. It was much better that the Government should take such steps as would include this class of servants in the Bill.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLASsaid he was one of the authors of the Bill of last year, and he admitted that they did not include domestic servants in it. He was still of the opinion that they should not be included. If the House generally desired to take the course suggested by the Prime Minister, of course they would do so. He congratulated the right hon. Gentleman upon this fact, at all events— that he had not left it to the House, but 1059 had taken the responsibility for including domestic servants in the Government Hill.
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLASasked what course the Prime Minister intended to pursue with regard to the Bill to-night. They had made considerable progress and there had been no attempt to use obstructive methods. But it was quite evident that unless they sat all night it would be impossible to finish the Bill at this sitting. He thought that if they were now to adjourn they would be able to bring the Bill to a conclusion somewhere about the dinner hour to-morrow-evening. He moved the adjournment of the debate.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned." —(Mr. Akers-Douglas).
§ MR. KEIR HARDIEasked what would be the fate of the Provision of Meals Bill, which was down for tomorrow, if the suggested arrangement were concluded. He thought if the whole of Friday was to be taken up with the discussion of the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule, and only to-morrow evening was to be given for the consideration of the Children's Bill, it would be a one-sided bargain for those who were specially interested in the Bill.
§ SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid the request of the right hon. Gentleman was a very fair one. As he said at the beginning of business, there never was any intention to subject the House to any violent extension of the sitting, and if by general consent they could get the close of this stage of the Bill 1060 before the House by dinner-time tomorrow, the Government would be prepared to adjourn the proceedings. The Bill to which the hon. Member for Merthyr referred would come on after this Bill and the Second Reading of the Licensing Bill, which would be put down as the second order, were disposed of. On Friday the first business would be the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule for the rest of the session, and then the House would resume, if necessary, the Provision of Meals Bill. The Motion on Friday would include that day, and, therefore, there would be ample time for the Bill.
§ MR. LAURENCE HARDYsaid there were undoubtedly a great number of questions which must come up for discussion on the schedules of the Workmen's Compensation Bill. He wished to enter a caveat against the supposition that it would be possible to bring up all these questions before the dinner hour. If they had not been reached by the dinner hour, he hoped further opportunity would be given for their discussion.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Bill, as amended (by the Standing Committee), to be further considered to-morrow.
§ Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
§ Adjourned at twenty-seven minutes after Eleven o'clock.