§ SIR CHARLES DILKE (Gloucestershire, Forest of Dean)To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the apparent inconsistency of surgeons appointed by the Home Office to official positions, as, for example, those 1678 of medical referee or certifying surgeon, holding at the same time positions in which they have to represent an interest sometimes at variance with their official functions; whether in consequence the same surgeon often has to act judicially and also to be called as a witness by a litigant in the same case; whether the certifying surgeons in the Potteries districts hold appointments from the Potteries Insurance Company; whether such certifying surgeons investigate on behalf of the insurance company cases of suspected lead poisoning first diagnosed by the medical attendant of the workmen and attend the directors' meeting to be consulted by the insurance company upon cases in their respective districts; whether a workman can only receive compensation for disablement from a scheduled disease if he first obtains a certificate, while in the event of appeal against refusual of a certificate the certifying surgeon is often retained by the insurance company or employers to represent them in appeal; whether he will consider the possibility of providing in future appointments for a greater separation of duties; and, in the case of lead poisoning, whether he will allow the matter to be considered by the Departmental Committee.
(Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) In the case of medical referees under the Workmen's Compensation Act, it is, with few exceptions, made a condition of appointment that the referee shall not hold any position such as that of a works doctor or medical officer of a workmen's club, or any regular employment from an accident insurance company, which might cause him to be regarded as representing the interests of any party in cases arising under the Act. The case of certifying surgeons, who are primarily appointed for duties under the Factory Act, stands on a somewhat different footing, and no similar condition is imposed. I have made inquiries, however, of the certifying surgeons in the Potteries districts and am informed by them that they do not hold appointments from the Potteries Insurance Company, and do not investigate on behalf of the company cases of suspected lead poisoning or attend the directors meetings. It appears that in 1679 pursuance of an arrangement made before the passing of The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, in connection with the scheme of insurance in the special rules, the certifying surgeons have made weekly examinations of operatives who had been suspended by them under the rules and furnished the worker with a certificate of his condition. There have been very few appeals so far against the determination of certifying surgeons, in the first nine months ten, of which two only referred to lead cases, and I cannot say whether the certifying surgeon has appeared before the referee or not. The certificate of the surgeon which is appealed against has, under the Secretary of State's rules, to be submitted to the referee, who is also required to consider any statements made or submitted by either party. If either party wishes to submit any explanation by the certifying surgeon of the grounds for his decision, I do not think that could properly be prevented. As regards the point raised by my right hon. friend in the penultimate sentence of the Question, this is already provided for, as above stated, in the case of medical referees, and as regards certifying surgeons it has not escaped my consideration. It would not, however, be possible to lay down a strict rule, because in industrial districts it is often difficult to find a well-qualified medical man who does not hold some appointment from employers or associations of workpeople. The question would be outside the scope of the reference to the Lead Committee, but I shall be happy to inquire into any case of grievance which may have come to the notice of my right hon. friend.