§ (1) Where an insured person has received or recovered or is entitled to receive or recover, whether from his employer or any other person, any compensation or damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, or any scheme certified thereunder, or under the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, or at common law, in respect of any injury or disease, the following provisions shall apply.—
- (a) No sickness benefit or disablement benefit shall be paid to such person in any case where any weekly sum or the weekly value of any lump sum paid or payable in respect of any such compensation or damages is equal to or greater than the benefit otherwise payable to such person, and where any such weekly sum or the weekly value of any such lump sum is less than the benefit in question, such part only of the benefit shall be paid as, together with the weekly sum or the weekly value of the lump sum, will be equal to the benefit:
- (b) The weekly value of any such lump sum as aforesaid may be determined by the society or committee by which the sickness and disablement benefits payable to such person are administered—
- (c) No person entitled to any such compensation as aforesaid from his employer shall, except with the consent of the society or committee by which the sickness and disablement benefits payable to such person are administered, enter into any agreement to accept any lump sum in respect thereof, and any agreement entered into without such consent shall be null and void:
- (d) Nothing in this Section shall affect the right of an employer to redeem a
1140 weekly payment by payment of a lump sum in any case where he is entitled to do so under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, but where he exercises such right he shall, within three days thereafter, send to the Insurance Commissioners, or to the society or committee concerned, notice in writing of such redemption, giving particulars as to the amount of the lump sum and of the application thereof: - (e) Where an insured person is entitled to any such compensation or damages as aforesaid and refuses or neglects to take proceedings to enforce his claim, it shall be lawful for the society or committee concerned, either at its own expense, to take in the name and on behalf of such person such proceedings, in which case any compensation or damages recovered shall be held by the society or committee as trustee for the insured person, or to withhold payment of any benefit to which apart from this Section such person would be entitled.
§ (2) Nothing in this Section shall prevent the society or committee paying to an insured person entitled to such compensation damages benefit by way of advance-pending the settlement of his claim for compensation or damages, and any advance so made shall, without prejudice to any other method of recovery, be recoverable by deductions from or suspension of any benefits which may subsequently become payable to such person.
§ Sir G. DOUGHTYI beg to move, to postpone the Clause in order to call attention to a serious defect in its provisions as affecting the working classes who are insured under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It is intended, as I interpret the Clause, to attach to the approved society all the advantages accruing under the Workmen's Compensation Act to men 1141 who have sustained accidents or suffer from sickness attendant upon accidents.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI ought to point out that the Motion is to postpone the Clause, and on that there is not the same liberty of discussion as on a question of leaving out the Clause. The hon. Gentleman can only debate the question whether the Clause ought to be postponed till the end of the Bill, and give reasons for that.
§ Sir G. DOUGHTYMy chief reason for postponing the Clause is that you are going to take away from insured persons advantages that they now enjoy, and by that means attach those advantages under the Act to the approved societies. Workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act are at present doubly insured, so to speak.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThat is an argument against the Clause, and not an argument for postponing it.
§ Sir G. DOUGHTYIn my judgment it is a very bad Clause, and if it was postponed for ever, so much the better. If it becomes law it will have a very detrimental effect.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANThe point that the hon. Gentleman evidently desires to raise will arise on the Motion to leave out paragraph (a), and he will no doubt find liberty of debate much wider there. Perhaps, under the circumstances, he will not press his Motion.
§ Sir G. DOUGHTYMay I ask whether another point I desire to raise can be raised later? I have an Amendment down which affects the share fishermen, who, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, are not workmen within the meaning of the Act. They will be under a great disability if they cannot enjoy the full advantages of the provisions of this Act.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI have looked at the hon. Gentleman's Amendment, and though part of it is out of order a part is in order, and I think he will have an opportunity of raising a discussion.
§ Sir G. DOUGHTYThen I do not move.
§ Mr. J. WARDI will move the Motion that this Clause be postponed, because it would be absurd to decide the way in which compensation shall be distributed until we know the whole of the conditions which are to be provided in the other Clauses of the Bill. I think it most essen- 1142 tial that before we decide this principle we should know exactly under what circumstances the whole of the men are going to be placed either as voluntary contributors or as employed contributors. Before we can decide what ought to be done with this Clause, and whether there is any justification for this proposed distribution, we must first of all know the whole business of the Bill and what is offered under it. For that reason I will take this Motion to a Division if I can get a teller.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Mr. STEPHEN WALSHI believe it is absolutely necessary that this Clause should be postponed, because of the inevitable confusion it will create. The Clause embraces more than the Workmen's Compensation Act—some of the most obscure matters of law which can possibly be imagined. It speaks of proceedings at common law and it speaks of the Employer's Liability Act. Postponement is inevitable, and I am sure the Chancellor himself must see that the matters included in the Clauses are so obscure that postponement must really take place if satisfaction is to be given to all the great interests involved.
§ Mr. HOLTI have a great deal of sympathy with the Motion, because I do not at all like the way in which, under this Clause, it is proposed to deal with workmen's compensation. It seems to me that, workmen's compensation being a form of insurance, we are now establishing a second form of insurance, and really the two ought to be merged in one. I will ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it is not possible to withdraw the Clause now and bring in a fresh Clause which will abolish workmen's compensation altogether, put it all into one fund and let the employer pay a larger contribution and let the workman get his money, no matter under which account he claims, and so avoid endless litigation. It seems perfectly ridiculous that there should have to be litigation as to whether a certain workman is to be paid out of the fund to which the employer contributes a third or out of the fund to which he contributes the whole. As a matter of business, it would be very much better to average the employer's contribution and let the whole charge come upon one fund only. I suggest that the postponement of the Clause altogether would enable the promoters to consider whether they should not bring up an altogether different scheme for dealing with workmen's compensation which 1143 would merge it in this insurance fund and give us only one fund and one contribution and one charge upon it. It would save an endless amount of solicitor's expense, and we should all be very much better off. There would be less money to pay and more to receive. There will be less expense, because less money will be wasted in expenses. I would ask whether there is no means of combining this insurance with workman's compensation.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEMy hon. Frind says he has brought forward this to facilitate the progress of the Bill. He suggests I should—in addition to insurance for sickness and invalidity—add another Bill—insurance against compensation. It would be quite out of order. The getting of the Bill as it is has not been very easy; not even on this side of the House. If I were to add on to it a gigantic scheme of insurance for compensation for accidents as well, I cannot see any prospect of getting away this side of Christmas at any rate. My hon. Friend says, "You have taken over the doctors, and ought to take over the solicitors." He thinks you ought to set solicitors to catch solicitors. I think one profession at a time is enough, if he does not mind. It is all I can undertake. There are a great many more difficulties than what my right hon. Friend imagines, in doing what he suggests. I do hope we can get on to the Clause now. There are several very important Amendments the Government propose to move, and I think he had better see what this Clause will be like.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPESurely it is usual in legislation to set out what you want to do and then the provisions for doing it. You
§ have got to the critical point of the Bill. Surely you ought to set out what we want in the way of departures in this Bill and see how they can be fitted in under the existing provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It is not the usual procedure to interpolate it here instead, and it will only create fresh difficulties.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThere is something in what my hon. Friend (Mr. Hope) has said, and I agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer it will be quite impossible to do as the hon. Member (Mr. Holt) desires regarding compensation, but that does not really prevent this Clause being postponed until we know what benefits we are dealing with. If the Chancellor will look at the Clause he will see it begins by saying insured persons can receive and recover certain things, and certain things will follow. We do not know what the employed person is to receive, and it would be well to postpone the Clause until we know what benefits are to be given. I cannot support the proposal of the hon. Member for Hexham Boroughs (Mr. Holt), because I am told his speech was out of order. He was not arguing that the Clause should be postponed or that it should be considered later. He was arguing certain other things should take place. I agree it would be unfair to put further burdens on the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I want to make things easier for him. Let us postpone this Clause until we actually know what we are doing. We really do not know what we are talking about.
§ Question put, "That Clause 11 be postponed."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 124; Noes, 197.
1147| Division No. 287.] | AYES. | [10.10 p.m. |
| Adamson, William | Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Burn, Colonel C. R. | Grant, J. A. |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward |
| Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Cassel, Felix | Hambro, Angus Valdemar |
| Baker, Sir Randall L. (Dorset, M.) | Cator, John | Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Cautley, Henry Strother | Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Clive, Percy Archer | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence |
| Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) | Clynes, John R. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Barlow, Montague (Salford, South) | Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Henderson, Major H. (Berkshire) |
| Barnes, G. N. | Dixon, Charles Harvey | Hill-Wood, Samuel |
| Barnston, H. | Duke, Henry Edward | Hoare, Samuel John Gurney |
| Barrio, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Duncan, C. (Barrow In-Furness) | Hodge, John |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts., Wilton) | Eyres-Morrsell, Bolton H. | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Falle, Bertram Godfray | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Fell, Arthur | Houston, Robert Paterson |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Fleming, Valentine | Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath) |
| Bigland, Alfred | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Ingleby, Holcombe |
| Bird, A. | Gibbs, George Abraham | Jewett, Frederick William |
| Boyle, W. Lewis (Norfolk, Mid) | Gill, A. H. | Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. |
| Boyton, James | Goldsmith, Frank | Kerry, Earl of |
| Brace, William | Goldstone, Prank | Kyffin-Taylor, G. |
| Lansbury, George | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) | Thomas, J. H. (Derby) |
| Larmer, Sir J. | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) | Touche, George Alexander |
| Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Valentia, Viscount |
| MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh | Ronaldshay, Earl of | Walrond, Hon. Lionel |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Macmaster, Donald | Sanderson, Lancelot | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| MacNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine) | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid) |
| Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) | Wardle, George J. |
| Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honlton) | Snowden, P. | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Neville, Reginald J. N. | Spear, Sir John Ward | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Newdegate, F. A. | Stanier, Beville | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Nield, Herbert | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude |
| Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. | Stewart, Gershom | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Parker, James (Halifax) | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Parkes, Ebenezer | Sutton, John E. | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Swift, Rigby | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) | Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) | |
| Pointer Joseph | Talbot, Lord Edmund | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir G. Doughty and Mr. John Ward. |
| Pollock, Ernest Murray | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | |
| Rawson, Colonel Richard H. | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes | Meagher, Michael |
| Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Furness, Stephen | Mooney, John J. |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Gelder, Sir W. H. | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Agnew, Sir George William | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Mount, William Arthur |
| Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire) | Glanville, H. J. | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Needham, Christopher T. |
| Armitage, R. | Greene, Walter Raymond | Neilson, Francis |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Greig, Colonel James William | Nolan, Joseph |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Norton, Captain Cecil W. |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Hackett, John | Nuttall, Harry |
| Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, B.) | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Barton, William | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Beale, William Phipson | Harwood, George | O'Dowd, John |
| Beauchamp, Sir Eaward | Haslam James (Derbyshire) | Ogden, Fred |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Benn, W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Haworth, Sir Arthur A. | Paget, Almeric Hugh |
| Bentham, G. J. | Hayden, John Patrick | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Hayward, Evan | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Bowerman, C. W, | Helme, Norval Watson | Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Henderson, J. McD. (Aberdeen, W.) | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Henry, Sir Charles S. | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Higham, John Sharp | Philipps, John (Longford, S.) |
| Burns, Right. Hon. John | Hinds, John | Pollard, Sir George H. |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Holt, Richard Durning | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Radford, G. H. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hunter, William (Lanark, Goven) | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) | Reddy, Michael |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Jessel, Captain H. M. | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | John, Edward Thomas | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Clough, William | Johnson, W. | Richards Thomas |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Roberts, Sir J, H. (Denbigh.) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Joyce, Michael | Robinson, Sidney |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Keating, Matthew | Roche, Augustine (Louth) |
| Crooks, William | Kellaway, Frederick George | Roche, John (Galway, E.) |
| Crumley-Patrick | Kelly, Edward | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | King, Joseph (Somerset, North) | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Rowlands, James |
| Dawes, J. A. | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Delany, William | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Levy, Sir Maurice | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Dickinson, W. H. | Logan, John William | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. |
| Doris, William | Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Scott. A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Duffy, William J. | Maclean, Donald | Sheehy, David |
| Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | MacNeill, John G. S. (Donegal, South) | Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) |
| Edwards Enoch (Hartley) | Macpherson, James Ian | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | M'Curdy, Charles Albert | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Farrell, James Patrick | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | M'Laren, H. D. (Leics., Bosworth) | Tennant, Harold John |
| Ferens, Thomas Robinson | M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe) | Thorne, G. R. (Welverhampton) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Manfield, Harry | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Walters, John Tudor | White, Patrick (Meath, North) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) | Whyte, A. F. | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay | Wiles, Thomas | |
| Webb, H. | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Gulland and Mr. Illingworth. |
| White, Sir George (Norfolk) | Williamson, Sir Archibald | |
| White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "whether" ["whether from his employer or any other person"].
The Amendment of which the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Wedgwood) has given notice, to leave out the words, "or any other person," "or at common law," obviously could not be moved unless the word "whether" is taken out first. The Clause is very wide as drawn, and the omission of the word "whether" raises the whole question of the desirability of passing the Clause in its present form.
§ The CHAIRMANI do not know what the hon. Member means by opening up the whole Clause. If he wants to do that he should wait until the Clause is put as amended, and then discuss the question whether the Clause should pass or not.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSThe hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, in his Amendments, practically takes away half the Sub-section by leaving out "or any other person," and "or at common law." Therefore, I am bound to leave out the word "whether." The Sub-section as it stands is:—
"Where an insured person has received or recovered or is entitled to recover, whether from his employer or any other person, any compensation or damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, or any scheme certified thereunder, or under the Employers' Liability Act, 1880, or at common law, in respect of any injury or disease," certain provision shall apply.
That means that any person who is insured under the Bill, whether an employed person or a voluntary contributor who has any claim for damages under these two Acts, either against his employer or against any other employer, comes under the provisions of this very complicated Clause. I venture to ask that the Clause be limited to the questions which I really think must have been meant in the first instance.
§ The CHAIRMANSurely the hon. Member is discussing a different proposition. If the two propositions are to be discussed 1148 together I have no objection, but the omission of "whether" opens up the co-relative of "any other person." I do not mind if the propositions are discussed together.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSNor do I mind in the least.
§ Mr. GILLThe Amendment simply forestalls our proposal to leave out the Subsection. I submit that it would be better that the discussion should take place on paragraph (a), which raises the whole question of whether the Workmen's Compensation Act should be included.
§ The CHAIRMANI see no objection to the hon. Gentleman's Amendment being moved if it is connected with the words "or any other person."
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI will confine it to those words and leave the question of the Workmen's Compensation Act to be dealt with at a subsequent stage. But, apart altogether from the question of workmen's compensation or employers' liability, if an insured person has any claim to damages against anybody else other than his employer, if he meets with a railway accident, is run over by a cab or a bus in the street, or if somebody hits him in the eye then his claim for damages for anything of that kind is brought under the purview of this Bill. I do submit that you are putting an enormous difficulty not merely upon the workman, but upon all those who have to do with the administration of justice in compensation claims, if you are going to bring the machinery of the approved societies into every one of these claims for damages, unless these words are omitted from the Bill. All the money that comes from compensation of every kind for damages in respect of any claim against any outside person under any conditions whatever will be swept in under the provisions of this Clause. By doing this you are importing into the existing relations between friendly societies and their members something totally outside the purview of the Bill. I do not believe that the friendly societies have asked for it at all. I do not think that the workmen want it. I am perfectly certain from the information I have 1149 received that the employers feel that it would very much harass them, and this is not merely the case with employers, but with all those who have to deal with questions of compensation. Take a concrete case. Suppose a man receives a slight injury in the street, on a railway, or anywhere else. He goes to the owner of the railway, or whatever caused the accident and receives a couple of sovereigns as compensation. If this Clause is passed that cannot be done without the consent of the friendly society. The couple of sovereigns are received not as compensation for lack of work, but as compensation for pain and suffering. That compensation has to go to the friendly society. I venture to suggest—I am not dealing now with employers—that a man who suffers an injury totally unconnected with the Workman's Compensation Act, or the Employers Liability Act, but from some other source outside his employment, is entitled to receive any sum of money he can get by way of compensation from that outside source without being fettered by having these negotiations with outside persons brought into the purview of this Clause.
§ Mr. McKENNAIn the last words of the hon. Gentleman's speech he made it quite clear that his intention was relevant to the Amendment which he had moved, but I am bound to observe that nearly the whole of his speech was anticipating an Amendment which appears lower down on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend below the Gangway. The real and the only issue hero is whether a man who is receiving compensation for an accident, no matter who pays the compensation—that is not relevant to the issue in this Clause—should at the same time be a charge upon the funds of his society. [An HON. MEM-BER: "Any kind of accident"] Any kind of accident. whether under the Workmen's Compensation Act or the Employers' Liability Act. He is already being provided for in his time of sickness. He ought not, therefore, to come upon the funds of the society.
§ Sir G. DOUGHTYIf he is a member of a friendly society he is receiving that now.
§ Mr. McKENNAThe last Clause we have been dealing with was one giving the benefits that any friendly society could afford to give. We are now dealing with this Clause, and the point we have to discuss is what is the best way to distribute the funds of the society? You have only 1150 a certain amount of money to deal with, and surely it is far more important you should not trench upon the funds which are available?
§ Mr. J. WARDOn a point of Order. Is the general Clause under discussion? Are we not discussing the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Brentford?
§ Mr. McKENNAI quite agree; but the speech of the hon. Member for Brentford was directed to the whole point and forestalled the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and I am only giving an answer to him in the briefest form, and showing that this Amendment really does not apply now. I think I would agree as to the general purpose of the Clause that he is right. It is that such benefit should be withheld where a man is already provided for by payment of compensation in respect to an accident; and that it does not matter whether that compensation comes from the employer or from any other person. Therefore, I think it would be desirable that we should get rid of these preliminary Amendments, and get to the question of substance raised by the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway, whether in all these cases it should be withheld whilst compensation is being received.
§ Mr. J. WARDI wish to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Brentford. I have heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (the First Lord of the Admiralty) who says that the first section only applies to accidents. I see nothing in the Clause to suggest that that is the case. I take the Amendment as it is proposed, and your definition, Sir, that "whether" is only connected with "or any other person." As workmen's compensation and employers' liability are not common law but Statute law we may therefore take it that "any other person" applies to the action mentioned below. I do not know whether or not I am correct in my interpretation. Lawyers evidently will differ. One lawyer says "Yes," and others shake their heads and say, "No." That is generally the case when it comes to a legal question. I only wish, therefore, to call attention to the necessity of this Amendment being carried because I notice it says "or at common law," and "in respect of any injury." But it does not say "by accident" or anything of that kind. It may be a man knocked down as an ordinary citizen in the street. It may be, so 1151 far as I can see, until there is some interpretation, "injury to his reputation or character." I see no saving provision in the Clause. I daresay there is some saving Clause, but it seems to be drafted sufficiently broadly in the first stages. I am informed that it has no saving Clause in it. It is quite clear the suggestion of the hon. Member for Brentford is bound to be adopted, unless the Chancellor of the Exchequer has some suggestion to make with reference to the limitation of what an injury actually is. I understood that, if I proposed to bring an action for damages for libel it would be because I was injured. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Well, I have benefited then; but I understood you said you were injured. I understood that when you entered an action of that description that was what you said. You plead that you have been injured in your reputation or character. There is no limitation in the Clause; it simply says, "at common law, in respect of any injury." It may be against anybody, not merely the employer, unless there are some saving words which I do not see. It seems to me that if I entered an action for any kind of injury, either to person or to character, and got compensation or damages—because the term "damages" is used—if I brought an action for libel and got—as I probably should if I belonged to the opposite side—£5,000 or £10,000 damages, the approved society of which I was a member would be entitled to claim that, and to dole it out to me just as they chose. It is a monstrous proposition. There may be something in the Clause, but clearly it needs to be limited in some way.
§ The CHAIRMANIt is a question not of limiting the Clause in some way, but of limiting it in a particular way, and the hon. Member does not seem to be directing his remarks to that point.
§ Mr. J. WARDI really want to know what the Clause means, what "injury" means, what "common law" means, what "any other person" means.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is precisely what does not arise on this Amendment.
§ Mr. J. WARDI do not suppose it ever will arise.
Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDSThe hon. Member says that the words, "or any other person" can have no relevance 1152 except to an action brought at common law, and that they have no relevance to either the Workmen's Compensation Act or the Employers' Liability Act. In Section 6 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, he will find these words:—
"Where an injury for which compensation is payable under this Act is caused under circumstances creating a legal liability on some person other than the employer to pay damages in respect thereof …"
§ Mr. J. WARD"Or at common law."
Mr. C. EDWARDSThe words of the Bill are—
"Where an insured person has received or recovered or is entitled to receive or recover, whether from his employer or any other person any compensation or damages."
And so on; and the Workmen's Compensation Act provides quite specifically by Section 6 that where an injury for which compensation is payable arises under circumstances creating a legal liability in some person other than the employer to pay damages in respect thereof, the workman may take proceedings against both that person to recover damages and against any other person liable to pay compensation under that Act; that is to say, in respect of an accident which arises out of and in the course of his employment he is secured in compensation either from his employer or from any other person who may be legally liable. So that "any other person" has direct relevance to the Workmen's Compensation Act. More than that, the words "or common law," as the hon. Gentleman, I should have thought with his large experience of accidents to the members of the trade union with which he is connected, would have known would apply. Up to 1880 there was no Employers' Liability Act, and where an accident arose to a workman his only remedy was at common law. That common law right exists to-day, notwithstanding the passing of the Employers' Liability Act and notwithstanding the passing of three Workmen's Compensation Acts. Common law applies as much to accidents arising out, and in course of a man's employment, as it does to accidents arising from ordinary causes. So that the words "or common law" have a direct reference to the liability which may come upon an employer's shoulders, as well as to other liabilities.
§ Mr. HOHLERI think the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken cannot deny that the language used in this section will cover the case of an insured person who on a holiday, say, gets run down in the street.
§ Mr. HOHLERThe point of this Amendment is that we want to get rid of these words to begin with. We will remedy the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Employer's Liability Act later. I do ask in fairness: What is the principle upon which an insured man who has paid his insurance should be robbed of the benefit? Say, for example, I am an insured person and I recover damages against a person who knocked me down in the street. That is wholly independent and outside this Act. This Sub-section is one of a number of tricks in this Act, devices introduced to obtain money for the purpose of this insurance scheme, which is supposed to be a benefit to the poor people. It is not fair or right. In regard to the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stoke, he will permit me to say that I do not think his illustration was to the point. I have some recollection that a short while ago he was in an action for £1,200, or somebody else was, as a result of his speech, and it is quite clear that the Sub-section does not cover a case like that. I entirely agree with the argument or principle of the hon. Gentle-
§ man who spoke from the opposite benches as far as it went. He did not go the whole length of saying what this Clause meant. I shall support the Amendment, for I see no justice in a provision which will entitle the Government to the benefit of the damages which a man may recover for an accident which arises wholly outside, and the Government have no right to put an embargo upon the moneys which the man. has paid for his insurance.
§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIESThe reference here is to the right of action against any other person. What I want to put to the Attorney-General is this: Assuming that an insured person has an accident policy, and in case of accident is entitled to £2 or £3 a week, are we to understand that that man may be deprived of the benefits of this Bill?
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSSupposing a man is ill and gets sickness pay under this Bill and undergoes a certain operation, and suppose he brings an action and gets damages against the surgeon for injuries inflicted, say, through the negligence of the surgeon and for unnecessary pain and suffering, would the damages recovered in respect of that have to be pooled under the provisions of this Bill?
§ Question put, "That the word 'whether' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 209; Noes, 128.
1155| Division No. 288.] | AYES. | [10.50 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Furness, Stephen |
| Abraham, Rt. Hon. William (Rhondda) | Chancellor, H. G. | Gelder, Sir W. A. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Chapple, Dr. William Allen | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Clough, William | Glanville. H. J. |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Greig, Colonel J. W. |
| Armitage, R. | Cotton, William Francis | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Gulland, John W. |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Crooks, William | Hackett, J. |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Crumley, Patrick | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Barran, Sir J. (Hawick) | Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Harmsworth, R. L. |
| Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Davies, E. William (Eifion) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) |
| Barton, A. W. | Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Harwood, George |
| Beale, William Phipson | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Dawes, J. A. | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Delany, William | Haworth, Sir Arthur A. |
| Bentham, George J. | Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Doris, William | Hayward, Evan |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Duffy, William J. | Helme, Norval Watson |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley) | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) |
| Brace, William | Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) | Hinds, John |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Holt, Richard Durning |
| Bryce, John Annan | Elverston, Sir Harold | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Esslemont, George Birnie | Hughes, S. L, |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Farrell, James Patrick | Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan) |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Ferens, Thomas Robinson | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Ffrench, Peter | Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | John, Edward Thomas |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Johnson, W. |
| Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Norman, Sir Henry | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Norton, Captain Cecil W. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Nuttall, Harry | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Joyce, Michael | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. |
| Keating, M. | O'Doherty, Philip | Sheehy, David |
| Kellaway, Frederick George | O'Dowd, John | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Kelly, Edward | Ogden, Fred | Shortt, Edward |
| King, J. (Somerset, N.) | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) | Smith, H. B. (Northampton) |
| Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rl'nd., Cockerm'th) | Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. | Spicer, Sir Albert |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Philipps, Col Ivor (Southampton) | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W)> |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Colonel A. R. | Pointer, Joseph | Sutherland, John E. |
| Logan, John William | Pollard, Sir George H. | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Power, Patrick Joseph | Tennant, Harold John |
| Lynch, A. A. | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Maclean, Donald | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Radford, G. H. | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Macpherson, James Ian | Raffan, Peter Wilson | Verney, Sir Harry |
| MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Walters, John Tudor |
| M'Curdy, C. A. | Reddy, M. | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Rendall, Athelstan | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.) | Richards, Thomas | Webb, H. |
| M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe) | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Manfield, Harry | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Marks, Sir George Croydon | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Meagher, Michael | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Williams, P. (Middlesbrough) |
| Mond, Sir Alfred M. | Robinson, Sidney | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Mooney, John J. | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Morgan, George Hay | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Murray, Captain Hon A. C. | Roche, John (Galway, E.) | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Needham, Christopher T. | Roe, Sir Thomas | |
| Neilson. Francis | Rose, Sir Charles Day | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood Benn. |
| Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Rowlands, James | |
| Nolan, Joseph | Rowntree, Arnold | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, William | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Grant, J. A. | Nield, Herbert |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Greene, Walter Raymond | O'Grady, James |
| Astor, Waldorf | Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. |
| Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Hambro, Angus Valdemar | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry) | Rawson, Colonel R. H. |
| Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Barnes, George N. | Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence | Roberts. S (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Barnston, H. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Hill-Wood, Samuel | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Hoare, S. J. G. | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Hodge, John | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Hohler, G. F. | Snowden, p. |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Bigland, Alfred | Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Bird, Alfred | Houston, Robert Paterson | Stewart, Gershom |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- | Hunt, Rowland | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid) | Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath) | Sutton, John E |
| Boyton, James | Ingleby, Holcombe | Switt, Rigby |
| Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell | Jowett, Frederick William | Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Kerry, Earl of | Thomas, James Henry (Derby) |
| Cassel, Felix | Kyffin-Taylor, G. | Touche, George Alexander |
| Cater, John | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Tryon, Capt. George Clement |
| Cautley, Henry Strother | Lansbury, George | Valentia, Viscount |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts., Mile-End) | Walsh Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Clynes, J. R. | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo. Han. S.) | Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid.) |
| Dixon, C. H. | MacCaw. Wm. J. MacGeagh | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Doughty, Sir George | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Duke, Henry Edward | Mackinder, Halford J. | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Macmaster, Donald | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Eyres-Monsell, B. M. | MacNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine) | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude |
| Fell, Arthur | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Fleming, Valentine | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Gill, A. H. | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | |
| Goldsmith, Frank | Mount, William Arthur | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joynson-Hicks and Mr. Falle. |
| Goldstone, Frank | Neville, Reginald J. N. | |
| Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Newdegate, F. A. |
Mr. TYSON WILSONI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out paragraph (a).
I should like to say, in moving the deletion of this paragraph, that the proposal of the Government is a most unjust one. It is going to place persons who meet with accidents, and receive compensation, in a great deal worse position than they are in at present. They now receive sick pay from their societies, but this Clause will deprive them of sick benefit under the Bill. The Government have no right whatever to take advantage of an Act passed in the interests of men and women who have met with accidents. You are putting those people in a great deal worse position than the ordinary insured person. Persons who are insured and are receiving sick benefit pay which is not equal to their wages are entitled to sick benefit under this Bill. Why should you not treat the man who meets with an accident in exactly the same way? His compensation is 12s. or 14s. per week. Why should he not be allowed to draw his sick pay under this Bill? The Clause is a most unjust and unfair one. It is going to hit hardest the people earning the lowest wages. People who receive the lowest wages receive the lowest compensation, and, that being so, it is going to hit them hardest. I hope the Government will accept the Amendment and delete this paragraph. I feel quite certain the deletion of the whole Clause would make the Bill more popular with the working classes of the country, because it would make it a more just Bill. It is simply robbing a man of a benefit for which he has paid and to which he is entitled. If you wish to make the Bill unpopular insist on keeping this paragraph and Clause in the Bill.
§ 11.0 P.M.
§ Mr. McKENNAI hope the hon. Gentleman will not mind what I am saying, but I think his language was a little bit more forcible than the occasion warrants. He said that in this Clause the Government are robbing the contributor of what he has paid. I think I can show him in a few words the Government are doing no such thing. According to the Actuaries' Report the amount of saving, not to the Government—for it will not affect the Government one penny—but to the funds of the society secured by this Amendment is one-tenth of the total amount of sick pay. The Committee have to solve this problem. There is a certain amount of money to be distributed by the society. With this 1158 Clause in the Bill the society can afford to pay 10s. a week sick benefit. Strike out this Clause and the funds of the society will only permit of their paying 9s. per week sick benefit. If I were to use the language of the hon. Gentleman I should say he is proposing by his Amendment to rob the beneficiaries under this Bill of 1s. per week sick benefit. Of course, I say no such thing. The hon. Gentleman himself intends to convey nothing of the sort. What he means by this Amendment is to keep the sick benefit at 10s. and yet knock out this paragraph. He cannot do both. He has to take his choice. If he carries his Amendment and knocks out this paragraph the effect will be to reduce the sick benefit to 9s. Why do not the Government do that? We think it preferable to keep the general rate of sick benefit at 10s. and not to pay the benefit in cases contemplated under this Clause.
The object of the Bill is to keep the home together, to provide for a man who is sick and has no other means of subsistence. In the case of an injured workman he will be getting compensation, and therefore he will not be under the same stress and necessity as the man who is sick and can earn nothing. He, at any rate, is provided for to some extent by the Workmen's Compensation Act. Is it not better to leave that man to look to the Workmen's Compensation Act and to maintain the general average rate of sick pay at 10s. per week, or to give the injured workman both the compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act and the disablement benefit and to reduce the latter benefit to 9s. per week. I do not think that anybody who has the general interests of this Bill and of the persons insured under it at heart can come to any other conclusion than that we had better maintain our rate of sick benefit at 10s. and leave the people who come under the Workmen's Compensation Act to look primarily to that compensation for their support.
§ Sir G. DOUGHTYI do not think that the hon. Member who proposed this Amendment said anything wrong when he declared that this would be a robbery of the individual who was at present insured. I think we must look at it from the standpoint of the position of the men who are under the Workmen's Compensation Act. At the present time where a workman is covered by the Compensation Act if he meets with an accident or with sickness consequent upon it, he has special 1159 advantage; he gets not only the half of his wages, but if he is a member of a friendly society he gets the sick pay to which he is entitled from that society, and therefore in that sense he is insured in two different ways. Under this Bill, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer has his way, all these insured people are going to be robbed of the advantage they now enjoy under the Workmen's Compensation Act, that is if they are members of friendly societies, and I do not see how you can get away from that point. For that reason I support the Amendment. I consider that it is a most serious thing for the six millions of people who are now under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and who are receiving an advantage, not through the society, but personally, because they suffer injury. You are going to attach to this Bill the advantages that the individual workman is entitled to if he sustains an accident and you are going to take under the wing of this Bill vast sums of money. In certain trades the payment that the masters make to the insurance fund is over 3d. a week for accidents and sickness attendant on accident, altogether apart from accidents in which death occurs. It is clear that men under the Workmen's Compensation Act who are members of friendly societies are going to have grave injury done to them if this Clause is allowed to stand and these men are robbed of what the Workmen's Compensation Act provides for them.
§ Mr. GILLI hope this paragraph will be deleted. There is a great feeling in regard to it in the country because it is an entirely new departure—one which no one expected to see. I cannot agree with the First Lord that the State gains nothing by the transaction. If the benefit is not paid the two-ninths guaranteed by the State for the payment of benefits will not be paid. Under these circumstances the State will have so much less to pay in regard to that two-ninths.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGENot a halfpenny. The whole of the money which is raised under the Bill will have to be spent in benefits, therefore the State will not pay a penny less.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe total amount is not less.
§ Mr. GILLI object to this paragraph on the ground that it is an entirely new 1160 departure. In the friendly societies at present which are voluntary the sum of 10s., and in many instances considerably greater sums, 12s. and over, are paid for accident benefit and are reckoned as sick benefit, and all that is in addition to what the workman receives under the Compensation Act. These are only voluntary friendly societies. You are compelling every workman to be in a society and to choose his own approved society. I will assume that the workman is only in one society. He is entitled under present circumstances to receive accident pay under the Workmen's Compensation Act. He is entitled also to receive sick pay, so that it now becomes his approved society, and he is being deprived—I will not say robbed—of that amount of money which he is now paying for sickness benefit. You may argue as much as you like that they are not being deprived of anything, but, when they find they are receiving 10s. a week less, it will be difficult to convince them. I look upon this as an attempt—not a deliberate attempt perhaps—to make the Workmen's Compensation Act somewhat a contributory scheme. The hon. Member let the cat out of the bag. lie certainly meant it to be a contributory scheme. I saw also a circular issued by a Chamber of Commerce in which they proposed it should be something like the German plan in which the compensation should be paid after a number of weeks. We should fight to the death anything of that description.
This House has become obsessed by the idea of malingering. A great deal too much has been made of it. I have had a great deal of experience of the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Act, in the society of which I am secretary. We have something like 1,000 cases a year. I have taken particular notice to see if I could detect malingerers. It was impossible to detect any. I agree there are some. In every walk of life there are some black sheep. If Members of this House were in connection with some things in which malingering could take place they would not be proof against it. From careful observation in connection with my society I am convinced that malingering does not amount to 2 per cent. And the result is that 98 per cent. are to be penalised because 2 per cent. does wrong. Great stress has been laid upon the eloquent speech of the Member for Spen Valley, but comparisons should not be made between the periods before and after the Workmen's Compensation 1161 Act came into operation. Before the Act came into operation the people had nothing to live upon when they were hurt. They went to work before they had been cured, and sometimes suffered for the rest of their lives. There is nothing said about the persons who go to work too soon. It is a common thing for a man to come to a trade union official with his fingers wrapped up and say, "I am going to try on Tuesday." Many of them have gone to work and have had to come off again afterwards. That shows the better side of the working classes, and they ought not to be blamed because 2 per cent. does something wrong. The hon. Member for East Aberdeenshire made reference to a disease doctor's call neurasthenia. People who had been injured felt they had a shock to their system and could not work; but immediately compensation ceased they went off to their work. This disease might be described as an insurance company's disease I have not met, in my society, a man who was actually fit for his work who said he was suffering only from neurasthenia. A man I know had to go to work and had to give it up again, and his society had to pay him benefit to the extent of £100 because he had no compensation in respect of that accident after the medical referee gave him notice to go to work. It was not fair to say men were shamming in this respect.
§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSONThat the disease exists medical documents prove. I am not saying it is general, but there it is.
§ Mr. J. M. HENDERSONIt is a common thing in the county courts for counsel to fix a sum for compensation for the reason that so long as the compensation goes on it is difficult to get the men back to work.
§ Mr. GILLOur experience of doctors in cases under the Workmen's Compensation Act has been that if you have one doctor swearing one thing on one side you have two doctors swearing the contrary on the other side. In regard to this matter what I object to is that 98 per cent. of the contributors should be penalised because 2 per cent. of them do wrong. In the case of lawyers if one member of the profession takes advantage of his position and does wrong, he is punished. You do not blame the whole body of lawyers. I think everybody would say that it would be unjust to 1162 do that. If a grocer sells adulterated food, you do not blame the whole body of grocers. If a farmer gets money dishonestly by adulterating milk, you do not blame all farmers. If a stockbroker starts a bucket shop, you do not blame all the whole body of stockbrokers. Working men are the only persons who are blamed because a minority of their number do wrong. I do not see why working men should be singled out in this respect. I think the compelling of a working man to go into an approved society and the depriving him of the 10s. he now gets cannot be justified under any circumstances whatever.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI wish to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer one question for the guidance of the Committee. Can he say whether the actuarial calculations on which the scheme is based are founded on the assumption contained in the Sub-section that no sickness benefit will be payable during the period of compensation for disablement?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe whole of the actuarial calculations have been based upon that. The actuaries reckon that this makes a difference of about 10 per cent. As a matter of fact the growing burden on the friendly societies during the last few years, especially on account of sickness, is, in the judgment of the actuaries and those who advise them, very largely due to the fact that there is double payment, which makes a difference of 10 per cent. If the Amendment were carried against us it would mean a reduction of 10 per cent. on the benefits under the Bill.
§ Mr. POLLOCKThere seems to be a good deal in the point as to what is to happen to a man if his sickness benefit or disablement benefit is not paid at a time when he has a right to recover against somebody else. Is the scheme thus propounded under Clause 11 a workable scheme? I quite follow the importance of it, and after what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said I do not think it possible to support the deletion of the Clause. But what I would like to point out is this: Clause 11 says that where an insured person has received or recovered, or is entitled to receive or recover, in those circumstances Sub-section (a) will apply. It is impossible in ordinary circumstances for a man immediately to have the question determined as to whether he is entitled to receive or recover this compen- 1163 sation, and the result is that as the Clause stands at present a man is placed in a great difficulty. At present if he is a member of a friendly society he will be able to get his sick pay at once at a time when he sorely needs it, but under this Section if he has a possible or potential claim he will not be entitled to any sickness or disablement benefit, because he would be in a position of a person who is a litigant, and therefore hopeful of recovery, or possibly being able to recover something under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSIf the hon. Member will look at Sub-section (2) he will find that there is a special power given to societies to enable advances to be made, which deals with the point that he raises.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI have not considered that. It may be sufficient. But I would like to see the man safeguarded for a certain period until the question had been determined. I do not think that it is sufficient merely to give the power to the society to pay. I think that the man should be entitled to benefit for one, two, or three weeks until the matter has been determined. I am sure that Members on both sides of the House are anxious to see some provision made, not that a man may but that he shall get something immediately upon his meeting with the accident.
§ Mr. JAMES PARKERWith regard to payments, it has been suggested that if this Clause is taken out of the Bill one-tenth of the benefit for sickness would have to go, namely, the cost due to the Workmen's Compensation Act which the friendly societies are now paying. That means one-tenth of their benefits. Let us assume that is so. What is the workman gaining to-day under the Workmen's Compensation Act? I believe I am correct in saying there was drawn under that Act something like £3,000,000 for the last year of which we have any record. If that amount be correct, then by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's own showing the position of the worker is going to be worse under this Bill than it is at present, if he be a member of a friendly society or trade union which pays sickness benefit. I myself have dealt with thousands of cases, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, belonging to different trades. Therefore, I know something of the working of that Act, something of the charges made for witnesses.
1164 I submit, argue as you will, that there can be no getting away from the fact that if this Sub-section is passed the ordinary workman who is in a trade union or friendly society to-day is going to be in the position of having to forego in many cases the whole of the 10s. which he gets for sickness benefit. Where the amount of compensation is lower than his sickness benefit he is only to get the difference to make up this sickness benefit. The assumption that 10s. a week is satisfactory compensation for loss of wages through injury is altogether wrong. Ever since the First Reading I have been a keen supporter of the Bill. I am perfectly satisfied with its main provisions, apart from this and certain other limitations. But I could not go into the Lobby to support a proposal of this kind, because I am satisfied that it is one of the biggest blots on the Bill. Too much is made by the employers of the question of malingering, when it is suggested that it is so bad that it is necessary to introduce into the Bill provisions which will take away practically at least two-thirds of the value under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I shall have pleasure in supporting the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. HOHLERI must rise to make a protest against some of the language which we have heard in the discussion of this Amendment. It is quite unnecessary to use strong language. A good case never requires it. It is quite clear that until this Bill becomes law a man who is injured is entitled, assuming he is employed, to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. You cannot deprive him of it. But you are proposing to him now that he shall be compulsorily insured and he will be bound to pay. You say to him, because you have another legal right, which now exists, which may be inadequate, and often the payment is entirely inadequate, you can receive nothing back for what is compulsorily paid under this insurance. That man would be infinitely better off by paying his money into an ordinary insurance society. It is the law that if I am insured and I meet with an accident the person liable cannot invoke the fact that I have compensation from an insurance company in reduction of the amount of damages he will have to pay to me, and yet it is assumed that these men should be deprived of that legal right. We have been told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that this does not affect the benefits. With all respect I differ from him. The Government has got to pay two-ninths of the 1165 benefits, but if a man is injured and he is entitled to sickness pay, and he is not paid, is it not clear that the Government do not pay the two-ninths of that, because the man never receives it? It may be said it is received elsewhere, but the Government by their Resolution are not to pay the 2d., but to pay two-ninths of the benefit. You may build up the fund somewhat, but still the Government pay less, and it is perfectly clear that the Member for Bolton (Mr. Gill) was right, and that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer said was no answer to him.
I do not think that the House really appreciates the case. I know of a case of a man who has got compensation which is permanent, subject to power to review tinder the Workmen's Compensation Act, for an injury to his left arm which will permanently incapacitate him. He is getting 10s. a week. He has recovered that compensation and is entitled to it every week. Let us assume that man gets what we call light work. Some benevolent person employs him as messenger. He again becomes an insured person and will be bound to pay his 3d. or 4d. per week. But by virtue of the fact that he is receiving, or has recovered, compensation for this accident, which is weekly and permanent, he can never get sickness benefit under this Bill though you compel him to contribute. No one can say that the language of the Section as it stands does not cover this case, and I say it is a grievous injustice. We have heard about malingering. I trust we shall not have that point raised again when other objections are taken to this Bill.
§ Mr. HOHLERThe Member for Pontefract is always on the malingering tack. I do not believe in this theory about general malingering. Many a man after his injury is in such a state of anxiety that he is quite incapacitated for work. It is so easy to say that people are dishonest. There are such cases, but it is not a right implication to make broadcast. Supposing a man does not get his compensation under this Bill. The friendly society will not trouble about him a bit. There will be no reason why they should. They will say, "We are not paying him, why should we bother about him?" If there be malingering, the only tendency of this clause will be to increase it, as it will be to nobody's interest to see whether the man is well or ill. As trade unions may become approved societies, the matter is equally im- 1166 portant to them as to the great approved societies. I shall certainly support the Amendment.
§ Sir ALFRED MONDThe question is obviously not an easy one. The Labour Members have stated the difficulty which they undoubtedly feel, and the difficulty exists. To deprive any man through this Bill of any right which he has through his trade union or friendly society will be felt as a great grievance. It will be no satisfaction to him to be told that the finance of the Bill, of which he knows nothing and cares less, will not enable him to obtain what he has had before. On the other hand, it seems to me that those Members who have argued for the deletion of the Sub-section have overlooked one cardinal difference between the contribution under this Bill and the old friendly society or trade union contribution. Under this Bill the employer and the State contribute as well as the workman. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act the employer is paying directly a benefit or compensation, call it what you will, to the injured person. If this Sub-section were deleted the employer would be paying twice over, first as an employer in respect of the accident, and then as a contributor to this fund. My suggestion is that, as far as his 4d. is concerned, the workman ought to be entitled to be paid that in benefit, whether receiving compensation or not. That would undoubtedly reduce the amount from 9d. to 4d., and would thereby ease the actuarial position.
It seems to me not quite reasonable to say that a man who has been contributing 4d. all the time, because he is receiving compensation for an accident, should not also receive the benefit of his 4d. contribution for insurance. That, it seems to me, is the difficulty. I think that some kind of compromise should be arranged on the lines I have suggested. This will remove the objections of hon. Members, will meet the point that is apparently in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and will add to the general friends of the scheme. We cannot, I think, adopt the altitude that we have only a certain amount of money which must be spent. There is no certain amount of money in the Bill; no definite sum is mentioned. We know roughly how much the actual expenditure is likely to be. But there should be no feeling of unfairness or of grievance left; nor should we starve a great national scheme even if the final cost is a little more. I am the last person in 1167 the House to wish to add to the burden of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; we all feel our responsibility in suggesting anything in that direction, but it would be a very sad thing if by an adherence to the idea of absolutely mathematical finance we produced a scheme which was not favourably viewed by the great trade unions, the great friendly societies, or, for the matter of that, amongst the workmen generally. I suggest this compromise in the belief that it will undoubtedly for the moment relieve a difficult situation.
Mr. WORTHINGTON-EVANSThis Clause, I think, is a difficult one. The Chancellor has told us that the actuaries have made their calculations so that the 4d. contributed by the workman is only able to give him the benefits, less the exceptions, specified, and that if sickness benefit or disablement benefit arising from accident were to be included in the benefits the contribution would be greater by one-tenth, or that nearly a penny a week would have to be exacted in order to make the fund watertight. Apparently the one-tenth cost that would be added by the Amendment would be £500,000 or £700,000 a year more. While I find great difficulty in supporting the Amendment that will add that large cost to the scheme, the actuaries have never taken into account, so far as I can gather from a cursory perusal of the report, the damages arising under the Workmen's Compensation Act. They only say that this Clause goes a good deal further. This Clause also includes employers' liability and common law liability. I want to draw a distinction not between the Employers' Liability Act and the Workmen's Compensation Act, but between the latter and common law liability. Supposing a man meets with an accident not in the course of his employment at all. Supposing one of the terrible motor omnibuses ran over him not when he was going to or from work. He would not be entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. He might possibly be entitled to compensation from the motor omnibus company if the motor omnibus had been driven negligently.
It seems to me that the actuaries have not taken that into account. It might well be taken into account now, and that part of the benefit that arises from an accident might be excluded from this Clause. The actuaries say that the whole cost is 10 per cent. of the benefit, and that it falls 1168 unequally on the various insured people. Some people are in hazardous trades, and you are going to make the agricultural labourer—if his work is non-hazardous—pay a part of the insurance of those, miners and others, who are engaged in hazardous occupations, and are accentuating the difficulty that we have found with the flat rate by the provisions of this Clause. I do not very much like the Clause, but on the other hand I find great difficulty in supporting an Amendment which is going to put another £500,000 or £700,000 upon the funds. I hope the Government will be able to do something in regard to the expenditure taken into account by the actuaries. Again, men who are at present in friendly societies and have current contracts with these societies are in a difficult position. They are insured in their societies against accidents, and they are not to be insured in future, but friendly societies will have to carry out these existing contracts with their existing members so insured, and in order to provide for them there will be another inroad upon the existing funds of those societies, and the Registrar of Friendly Societies will have to take into account that existing members will not in future be insured in their societies against this class of accident. I think the Chancellor would do well to reconsider this Clause, which is not complete as it stands. There are obvious injustices or difficulties in it, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer is putting the Committee in the very difficult position of either voting for something that will increase the expenditure by many hundreds of thousands of pounds or else letting pass a Clause which obviously contains points of real difficulty which, with a little further consideration, might be adequately amended.
§ Dr. CHAPPLEMalingering may be divided into two classes—the detected malingering and the undetected malingering; the detected must be very small and the undetected very large. The undetected malingering must be very extensive from the very nature of the case. A man complains to a doctor that he has a pain in his back and cannot work. There is no possible way of detecting whether that man is malingering. No examination by doctors would absolutely prove that that man had not a pain in his back, and when there is doubt the patient must be given the benefit of that doubt. If the doctor signs a paper and says the man is unfit to work he is risking only the funds, but if he says the man is malingering he is running a 1169 much greater risk, so that in all cases of doubt the man gets the benefit of it, and it is the unanimous view of medical men that there is an enormous amount of malingering which they cannot detect. Malingering is the enemy of the friendly societies. The best guarantee against malingering is to ensure that it does not pay. If a man gets twice the amount while idle that he would earn while at work, there is a strong inducement to him to be idle. Every member of a friendly society should be so loyal to his society and so loyal to the funds that he should look upon malingering as an enemy and treat it as such. It is wise to put in every safeguard possible against malingering, but it does not mean that members of friendly societies generally malinger because such safeguards are put in. A great many members of friendly societies are so conscientious and so sensitive that they continue to work when they are really ill, and in that way a great deal of injury is done. For this we do not require any safeguard, but for the few who do malinger it is essential. I think we may assume that an enormous amount of malingering would go on if you make it worth men's while.
§ Mr. CLYNESWith regard to the speech we have just heard, as the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. Gill) has made clear, the number of men who go back to their work after accidents before they are fit is far greater than the number of proved malingerers. May I remind the hon. Member that men do not get compensation for saying that they have got a pain in their back. Accidents have to happen first, and you have to prove them. They do not get compensation simply for the asking, and the man alleged to be injured must be certified as being in a state of physical disability. Are we to take it that doctors are so indifferent as to the certifying of facts that they will provide certificates merely for the pay they receive?
§ Dr. CHAPPLEI did not make that assertion. I said that when there was a doubt in the doctor's mind he would not run the risk of doing the patient an in justice, and would give him the benefit of the doubt.
§ Mr. CLYNESThe charge against the workmen that they malinger, to my mind, casts a great reflection more upon the competency of the doctors than upon the workers. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has informed the Committee as to the cost that will fall upon the State if this Amend- 1170 ment is carried, and we are asked to remember that there is only a certain sum at the disposal of the Government to make this Bill workable. On each occasion, when we raise a point specifically involving the possibility of an increase in the State contribution, are we to be told that no financial change can be made? When the Financial Resolution was under discussion we were told that the passing of it would not tie the hands of the House or the Committee, and we were assured that further provision could be made by other resolutions, or by some other amended proposal, if the Committee felt that some financial alteration was essential. I want to ask whether we can have some assurance that should a point be reached which, in the opinion of the Committee, it is necessary to increase the state contribution, will the Committee be free to make that increase should they so decide? Broadly, we look upon the income which an injured workman receives as compensation as something which ought to be absolutely independent of any other source of income whatever. This is not a sentimental question.
We oppose this Clause because it is so obviously unjust. The First Lord of the Admiralty argued that an injured workman was provided for by the compensation he receives. He receives at most half his wages, and he receives it, not because of physical pain and suffering, but because he is unable any longer to earn his full wages. In any other section of the community compensation is not calculated on that basis. Those who lose property or income from any other cause would never think of being content with half the loss they suffer. As a rule, they claim and get more than the total they lose. Seeing the amount of compensation is only half the man's total financial loss, altogether apart from his pain and suffering, and in view of the increased necessity for care and support in the case of an injured person, I think the Committee should agree the compensation should be absolutely independent and apart from any other form of income whatever. This is a great question affecting more than 300,000 persons who are injured in this country every year, and it is a question where above all others the Committee should try not merely to be just but generous. You will not be able to convince any injured workman a further injury is not done him by this Bill if after having paid for a sickness benefit he is robbed of it because he is receiving compensation. There is a further objection which might 1171 be offered to this Clause. It is the objection to legally limiting a workman's income. I know of no other instance where any class of the community has its income limited by law. That, together with the necessities of the injured workman, constitutes the strongest ground for offering the most resolute and determined opposition to this Clause as it stands.
§ Mr. HUNTA man pays to his friendly society for twenty years. He then meets with an accident, and ho gets 10s. a week compensation. His pay from his friendly society is 10s. per week. Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer going to take it away from him because he happens to have had an accident and is paid 10s. per week compensation? That, as I understand it, is the effect of the Clause, and I must say it is distinctly unfair. The man has paid for twenty years, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer says, "Although you have paid for twenty years you shall get nothing for it."
§ 12.0 M.
Mr. CAWLEYIt appears to me that this paragraph is absolutely necessary as a protection against malingering. The hon. Member for Bolton, in a spirited defence of the working people of this country against the charge of malingering, said one would not blame grocers as a body because a few of their number mixed sand with their sugar, neither would dairymen generally be condemned because some of them watered their milk. The criminal law is not framed because everybody is criminally inclined; it is directed against the few who are criminals. If this Clause is not adopted in the form proposed by the Government there will be men receiving more money when unemployed than when. in work. Most people, indeed, would rather receive a good deal for doing nothing than a smaller sum for working hard. By this proposal you are putting a strong temptation in the way of working men to not only claim sick benefit but to also seek compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. There is the authority of the actuaries for stating that this demand for sick benefit in addition to compensation under the Act has already led to a serious depletion of the funds of friendly societies, and common sense clearly points to the desirability of not following in this Bill the present practice of the friendly societies in this matter. This will be a very much better insurance bill with this Clause in in than without it. The object is to 1172 ensure that the workman when he is sick shall have the means of subsistence, and that is just as well secured by the Bill with the Clause in it as without it. He is insured 10s. a week while ill, but if you cut out this paragraph he will only get 9s. a week. The hon. Member for the Westhoughton Division talked about robbing insured persons. That is a very strong and at the same time incorrect expression. It is no question of taking away the property of an insured person: by this provision you do not take away one halfpenny from him. The object aimed at is to secure this benefit to working men and women when they need it; it is not to give it to those who already have sufficient subsistence; and because this Clause ensures that the Bill will provide it for a man or woman when it is really needed I believe it to be absolutely necessary, and I shall support it in its present form.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI do not think sufficient notice was taken of the Chancellor's defence against the Amendment. He told us that with this Amendment he would give 10s., but only 9s. under the provisions of the Bill. We had the right hon. Gentleman going up and down the country telling everyone he was going to give them 10s. a week sick pay, but he never told them he was only giving 9s., and that 1s. was going to be taken from the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It is robbed from those who are unfortunate enough to meet with accidents. It seems to me to be a far more serious statement than he has yet made in the Debates on the Bill. We have had these inequalities all through the Bill. The young man is robbed to make up for the older man, and hero we find that the injured man is robbed to make up for the man who does not have an injury. Let each class of the community pay for itself, and get its own benefits. In that case you would find that the people who are employed in dangerous trades would pay for their own insurance, and sickness benefit of 9s. a week, and they are going to get the odd shilling for those injured in mines and factories and in dangerous occupations. This is a very serious flaw in the Bill. I still support the aims of the Bill.
It would, I think, be far better and fairer in the interests of the working man himself that the Chancellor should say that the benefits under the Bill are 9s. and leave the benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act. He wants to get his 10s. If the odd shilling is to be 1173 provided at the expense of what I have always regarded as one of the charters of the working man in times of accident and injury, the Workmen's Compensation Act and the Employers' Liability Act, if it is provided by robbing these men who are insured, there would be very serious dissatisfaction. I for one should not like to go to my constituents, working men in friendly societies, and say: "We are going to pay you 10s. by taking a shilling, though we never told you beforehand, out of the benefits which you get under the Workmen's Compensation Act." Let me put another point. If a man who is not compulsorily insured voluntarily joins a friendly society or an insurance society and pays his contribution he gets his sick pay, and if he is injured he gets his workmen's compensation money just the same, and yet you are compelling these workmen to join a particular form of society and pay, many of us think not 4d. but 7d. a week. Many of us think that sooner or later a good deal of the employer's 3d. will fall on the shoulders of the working man also. You are compelling the working man at all events to pay 4d., and if he has an injury you are not giving him the same right to receive the benefit for which he pays.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDThere is only one point it seems to me which has not been dealt with. If forcible language would alter the decision of the Chancellor of the Exchequer I am quite prepared to use it. But, as I do not suppose it will, I would like to deal with this one special point. When a man secures compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act he may be entitled originally to a sum of £300, which is the maximum sum. I put this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Supposing a man is entitled to £300 full compensation. He gets £250 of that in weekly sums, and after that he settles for a lump sum, and the £250 is handed over to the trustees of an approved society on his behalf. When £50 of that £250 has gone in benefits he dies. What proportion of the balance of £200 goes to his dependents according to the original Act? What provision is there in this Clause for the distribution of the balance due to the man?
§ The CHAIRMANWill the hon. Member please point out the words in this paragraph which raise this point?
§ Mr. J. WARDI only asked the Chancellor if they were anywhere in the Bill.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is what I complain of. We are talking about the excision of a particular paragraph, and the hon. Member cannot tell me if there are words in it which raise this particular point.
§ Mr. J. WARDThe statement in this paragraph is that certain sums must be paid over and the man only receives a sum proportionate.
§ The CHAIRMANI think the hon. Member is misinformed. The paragraph merely says that if the man who has been injured receives compensation either by way of a lump sum or weekly payment, and if the weekly value is less than the benefit under this Act, part of the benefit under this Act shall be paid. The hon. Member must apply himself to that point.
§ Mr. J. WARDI want to know whether "no sickness benefit shall be paid to such person in any case where any weekly sum or weekly value of any lump sum'' of which they have become possessed has been paid, and therefore whether the lump sum is being considered under this Clause.
§ The CHAIRMANIf the hon. Member wants to know what the paragraph says and wants to read it, he had better read it through.
§ Mr. J. WARDI have just read a portion of it, and I will read the remainder: "the weekly value of any lump sum paid or payable in respect of any such compensation or damage is equal to or greater than the benefit otherwise payable to such person, and where any such weekly sum or the weekly value of any such sum is less than the benefit in question, such part only of the benefit shall be paid as, together with the weekly sum or the weekly value of the lump sum, will be equal to the benefit." It is a very illuminating proposition. I venture to suggest it is a most outrageous thing that compensation should be considered at all in the slightest degree. The idea of stealing a man's benefits, as is suggested in this Clause, because ho secures compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and avoiding liabilities which ought to be placed on the fund, is, I think, most outrageous. If we had known at the beginning that this was the suggestion, I think a far different reception would have been given to the measure.
§ Viscount WOLMERIn answer to hon. Gentlemen opposite who have been talking about malingering, I would say that if 1175 their proposal were accepted they would do much to perpetuate malingering. It would remove the whole machinery which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is setting up to prevent malingering. The right hon. Gentleman has enlisted the services of the friendly societies to help him in securing the proper administration of the Act. I believe hon. Members opposite would find it more economical in the end to give good benefit and administer it well than to give bad benefit and administer it badly. Not only will this Clause as it stands greatly increase malingering, but it will also inflict what would be felt to be an injustice upon many thousands of workmen who have been injured. An hon. Member opposite said that a man who received compensation did not need any sickness benefit. I ask the Committee whether a man who has to support his family and only gets half wages can be said to be in no need of assistance. I believe this Clause if allowed to stand without amendment will injure thousands of men in the country. It will do nothing to check malingering. It will rather increase it, and thereby benefit the dishonest at the expense of the honest.
§ Mr. S. WALSHIt is with some diffidence that I rise at all. I think if ever there was a time when speeches for purely political purposes were out of place it is on such an occasion as this. I think everyone who heard the speech of the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) must have seen that he was not delivering his philippics against the Sub-section because he disliked it but because of what was to go on at Luton to-morrow or elsewhere later. From the first time I saw the Bill in print I did not like it, and I have not refrained from expressing my dislike. This Sub-section applies to all injured persons and not merely to men. The words in paragraph (a) are "No sickness benefit or disablement benefit shall be paid to such person in any case where any weekly sum or the weekly value of any lump sum …" I rather think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's advisers have lost sight of one very important fact, namely, that every person under the Workmen's Compensation Act whose wages are 10s. or under in the event of accident receives his full earnings. Every person from the earliest working age until he is twenty-one will be entitled to 5s. sickness benefit, and that alone so far as sickness benefit is concerned. I think I am right in saying that that is in accordance with the 1176 concession made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer a couple of nights ago. Except in the case of members of from sixteen to twenty-one, with persons wholly or mainly dependent upon them, when the approved society can exercise an option, there will not be one case in a thousand in which these young persons will be entitled to sickness benefit, because there are very few young persons earning such small wages as 5s. a week, though, in the event of accident, these persons are entitled to the full wages.
But take the smallest wages imaginable, 14d. or 16d. a day, for three days a week, the smallest working time, they will get in the event of accident as much compensation as they would be entitled to sickness benefit. One deprecates speaking so much upon a particular industry, but when one's knowledge has been localised in a particular industry one can speak on that with the greatest information. Take the case of the mines. I myself have been engaged from the first moment of the Workmen's Compensation Act down to the present in administering tens of thousands of cases. Our accident rate in. the mines is one MI six of every person employed in and about the mines. There are over a million persons employed in mines. Hon. Members can imagine the immense work we have to do with regard to workmen's compensation. At least three-sevenths of that million persons in the mines are twenty-one years of age or under. In the event of accident for which they are entitled to compensation there will not be one out of 1,000 of these young persons who will be entitled to sickness benefit. I am quite sure that the legal advisers of the right hon. Gentleman can hardly have studied that point It is not from a spirit of perversity that we oppose this, but we can see what it really means.
I will not say it is robbery, because one cannot be robbed of that which he never had, but it is harshness at the very least that, when you do place compulsion upon this working person, young or old, in consequence of some other beneficent Act having been passed many years ago by which they are to receive a benefit in case of accident, that when you do impose a compulsory deduction upon their wages, especially in the case of these young people, that that compensation to which they are entitled will deprive them of practically all sickness benefit. Whatever one's private feelings may be upon the Bill one cannot deny that the Chancellor has certainly given the utmost consideration to 1177 almost every point that has been raised. I think that this is a real point. It has not been mentioned during the night. I say to the House that there are 400,000 young people, the vast majority of whom get 10s. a week wages or down to 5s., and all these are cut out by this provision because the sickness benefit would only be 5s. In this vast number of compensation cases in mines hardly one out of a thousand would receive any sickness benefit at all. That which applies in so great a degree to the mines would apply in a lesser degree to the other industries and especially to the textile factories, for which the Member for Bolton (Mr. Gill) can speak more effectively than I can. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not considered this point with the closeness that he ought to have given to it, and I trust that if he cannot agree to the deletion of the Sub-section he will have to agree to very substantial amendments made on it to remove the hardships in it, not to say the injustices.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWhen the hon. Member who has just spoken rose and began to call attention to this point, I thought at first that he had discovered a grievance. I think, however, that is really not the case. A young person under twenty-one years of age gets 100 per cent. of his wages as compensation if he does not. receive 10s. wages. He has the right to be paid up to 10s. a week under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Therefore he gets what is equal to full pay under this Bill.
§ Mr. S. WALSHPardon me for interrupting. He does not get 10s. in every case. It is only where the earnings are equal to 10s. that he gets 10s. He gets the equivalent to his earnings in the other cases. He does not get 10s.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI see. But supposing his wages are only 7s. a week he gets the whole of his wages. The suggestion is that he shall get more than his wages.
§ Mr. S. WALSHI did not say he should get more than his wages. I am sorry to interrupt because I know how anxious the Tight hon. Gentleman is to meet a grievance.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI am really.
§ Mr. S. WALSHMy point is that in the majority of cases of young persons injured who get compensation, from the ages of twelve to twenty-one, there will not be a 1178 single penny paid to them for sickness, because in every ease the compensation to which they will be entitled will be greater than the sickness benefits in the Bill, and therefore they will pay their contributions to this fund without any corresponding benefit.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEBut they are still fully provided for. They get 100 per cent. of their wages up to 10s., which is the maximum under the Bill, and therefore they have no special grievance. I will further consider the point raised by the hon. Member, and if on mature reflection I find there is really something in it I will undertake to see that matters are put right.
§ Mr. S. WALSHI thank you very much for your promise I hope you will reconsider the question of imposing the maximum deduction upon a young person.
§ Mr. PETOI wish to make a point before a decision is taken. It seems to me a great deal has been said in somewhat harsh terms by hon. Members about robbery and words of that sort, but I wish to urge a grievance that has not, been dealt with. In the case of a person who has received compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, a case put by an hon. Member on this side a short time ago, he may, although wholly or partly disabled, be a wage-earner again, doing light work, and on becoming a wage-earner will be compelled to make a weekly contribution for something which he can never be entitled to receive. It is not entirely a question of taking something away from a working man which he has never got, but it is a case of insisting upon taking something from him for a benefit which he can never receive. It is not so much the deletion of the Section that is required as some alteration in the contribution required from such a person, so as to make the contribution accurately represent the amount that person can possibly receive. If they can get nothing in addition to their compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act they should not be called upon to pay any contribution whatever to the insurance fund, because they can get no benefit. I hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look at it from that point of view and see whether it is not absolutely necessary to have this Sub-section framed so that there will be a new category of contributors who can only receive a small part of the benefits, and that they will be left out of the Bill altogether if they can receive no benefit at all.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, down to the word 'in' ["such person in any case"], stand part of the Clause."
1180§ The committee divided: Ayes, 154; Noes, 79.
1181| Division No. 289.] | AYES. | [12.25 a.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Nuttall, Harry |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Greig, Colonel J. W. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Guest, Hon Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire) | Gulland, John William | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) | Hackett, J. | O'Dowd, John |
| Armitage, Robert | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Ogden, Fred |
| Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Havelock-Allan. Sir Henry | Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Haworth, Sir Arthur A. | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick B.) | Hayden, John Patrick | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Hayward, Evan | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Beale, W. P. | Helme, Norval Watson | Pryce-Jones, Colonel E. |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Henry, Sir Charles S. | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Higham, John Sharp | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Holt, Richard Durning | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Reddy, M. |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Hughes, S. L. | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Brunner, J. F. L. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs.) |
| Bryce, John Annan | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | John, Edward Thomas | Robinson, Sidney |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Cave, George | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Joyce, Michael | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Chancellor, H. G. | Keating, Matthew | Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) |
| Chapple, Dr. W. A. | Kebty-Fletcher, J. R. | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Kelly, Edward | Sheehy, David |
| Clough, William | King, J. (Somerset, N.) | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lane-Fox, G. R. | Shortt, Edward |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th) | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Cotton, William Francis | Levy, Sir Maurice | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Lewis, John Herbert | Taylor, T. C. (Radcliffe) |
| Crawshay-Williams Eliot | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Tennant, Harold John |
| Crumley, Patrick | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Maclean, Donald | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Walters, John Tudor |
| Delany, William | Macpherson, James Ian | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Doris, W. | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Duffy, William J. | M'Curdy, C. A | Webb, H. |
| Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | M'Laren, H. D. (Leics.) | White, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | MacNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | Manfield, Harry | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Ferens, T. R. | Meagher, Michael | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | |
| Furness, Stephen | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood Benn. |
| Gelder, Sir William Alfred | Murray, Captain Hon. A. C | |
| George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | |
| Glanville, Harold James | Nolan, Joseph | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, William | Falle, B. G. | Joynson-Hicks, William |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Fell, Arthur | Kyffin-Taylor, G. |
| Barnes, George N. | Fleming, Valentine | Lansbury, George |
| Barnston, Harry | Gill, A. H. | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Goldsmith, Frank | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Goldstone, Frank | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe) |
| Boyle, W. L. (Norfolk, Mid) | Grant, James Augustus | Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A. |
| Boyton, James | Guinness, Hon. W. E. | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Brace, William | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hancock, John George | Pointer, Joseph |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Hardie, J Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Pollard, Sir George H. |
| Cassel, Felix | Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | Quilter, William Eley C. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Rawson, Col R. H. |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Henderson, Major H. (Berks) | Rendall, Athelstan |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Hill-Wood, Samuel | Richards, Thomas |
| Dawes, J. A. | Hohler, G. F | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Dixon, Charles Harvey | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Rowlands, James |
| Doughty, Sir George | Hunt, Rowland | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton). |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Ingleby, Holcombe | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Eyres-Monsell, B. M. | Jowett, Frederick William | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Sutherland, John E. | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) | Yate, Col. C. E |
| Swift, Rigby | Wardle, George J. | |
| Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford) | Wheler, Granville C. H. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. George Roberts and Mr. Charles Duncan. |
| Taylor, John W. (Durham) | Wilkle, Alexander | |
| Thomas, J. H. (Derby) | Williams, John (Glamorgan) | |
| Tryon, Capt. George Clement | Wolmer, Viscount |
§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIESI beg to move, in Sub-section (1), paragraph (a), after the word "person" ["to such person in any case"] to insert the words "in respect of any such injury or disease."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Sir GEORGE DOUGHTYI beg to move in Sub-section (1), at the end of paragraph (a), to insert the words, "Provided that in the case of share fishermen who are insured persons, and who have been rendered unfit to provide their own maintenance by bodily or mental disablement caused by accident, and who, but for the provisions of Section seven, Sub-section two, of The Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, would be entitled to compensation under that Act, sickness and disablement benefit shall be paid as in the case of ordinary sickness, but the society or committee shall be entitled to recover from the Insurance Commissioners all payments so made."
In the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1906 there is a Clause which precludes these share fishermen from any advantages of that Act. The consequence is that when this present Bill becomes law these men will be in this position: that if they apply to an approved society for membership they will be refused because their risk is greater than that of the ordinary man who comes under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I am desirous that these men should enjoy the benefits of the Workmen's Compensation Act. I have a private Bill which has been blocked by the Government Whip several times, and if I had the opportunity of getting that Bill through Parliament this grievance would no longer exist. These men are placed in a very unfair position. They are prejudiced because they will not be able to join an approved society as a consequence of their risk being greater than that of the ordinary man. There is one way that I suggest that this difficulty should be met, and that is that the Insurance Commissioners should pay to the approved society any sum of money that may be represented by an accident, or sickness arising out of an accident. That would put these men in the same position as the workman under the Compensation Act when he joins an 1182 approved society. There are many thousands of these men placed in this unfair and invidious position. Not only will these fishermen have to pay as employers, but. where they are part owners I am afraid they will have to pay the 3d. employer's contribution as well as their own 4d.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI understood the hon. Baronet to say that the Insurance Commissioners shall pay?
§ Sir GEORGE DOUGHTYYes.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSIf that is the effect of the Amendment, then I submit, Mr. Emmott, that it will be out of order, for the Insurance Commissioners have no fund at all. It is not the general insurance fund which is affected by this. The hon. Baronet must by this Amendment get the money from the general fund, which means the State.
§ Sir G. DOUGHTYThen, as I understand, that part of my Amendment would be out of order?
§ The CHAIRMANDoes the hon. Member move his Amendment without that part?
§ Sir G. DOUGHTYYes, Sir; I only made that suggestion in order perhaps that the Chancellor might think it equitable to find the money in that direction. Seeing this great disability on that large body of men I asked the Government to put in facilities, or to give some small assistance to those men. There are tens of thousands of fishermen outside the Workmen's Compensation Act.
§ The CHAIRMANWe have nothing to do with that now; the hon. Member must stick to his Amendment.
§ Sir G. DOUGHTYI only ask the Government to assist as far as possible to have this grievance removed in the way I suggest.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member's Amendment now is: "Provided that in the case of share fishermen who are insured persons, and who have been rendered unfit to provide their own maintenance by bodily or mental disablement caused by accident, and who, but for the provisions of Section seven, Sub-section two, of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, would be entitled 1183 to compensation under that Act, sickness and disablement benefit shall be paid as in the case of ordinary sickness."
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThe hon. Gentleman is disappointed that he has not passed his own Bill, which he introduced into the House; that I am afraid is his real difficulty and is the answer to his Amendment. Share fishermen do not at present come under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and the hon. Gentleman points out that in consequence of that these fishermen will find it more difficult to get into the friendly societies or become members of approved societies. The answer to that is that they can form societies of their own; it may be possible they would not have sufficient members to make up the number requisite under the Bill. That is a point which can be raised later on and the difficulty may not be as great as the hon. Member thinks. I cannot conceive that approved societies would reject these fishermen because they do not come under the Workmen's Compensation Act. They might affiliate with other societies and in that way become approved societies, assuming they are in sufficient numbers to come up to the figures required in the Bill. The alternative suggested by the hon. Member in his Amendment is hardly one that could be accepted by the Government, and I am quite certain he hardly expects that this Amendment could be accepted and that the benefits should be paid as in the case of ordinary sickness. If there is no question of a society coming in there is, of course, no benefits. You cannot take the benefits out of the general body of the insurers; all you can do is to provide they should join, as they are entitled to join, as an approved society either of their own or with any other society to which they might become affiliated.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI am afraid that this case is not quite so simple as the Attorney-General seems to think. He suggests that these men may have societies of their own. I believe that the societies they have are very small and I think it will be difficult for them to form societies of their own. But that does not meet the case. These men will require one-tenth more benefit than the ordinary member. Does the Attorney-General think that the ordinary approved society will take a man at the common rate who is a 10 per cent. worse risk than the common rate?
§ Mr. McKENNABut this Amendment does not meet that point.
Mr. AUSTEN CWAMBERLAI NThat is perfectly true. No private Member can move an Amendment altering the terms of the Resolution which the Government have bound the Committee to, and my hon. Friend is only permitted to raise this question by moving an Amendment which does not effect his object. In Committee of Supply we are not permitted to move an increase in the Vote, and therefore we often move to reduce the Vote when we really want to increase it. My hon. Friend has moved this Amendment in order to raise what is really a serious difficulty.
The Attorney-General must not be satisfied with the technical defence he has put forward. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer bound the House by the Financial Resolution we have adopted, he said he would not enforce it too narrowly, and would listen to a case even outside the scope of the Resolution, and if convinced by the arguments the right hon. Gentleman promised that he would vary the Resolution. The, Government ought not to rule out a substantial case because the Resolution was so narrowly drawn in the first instance, but if they do so they must take the responsibility and not ask us to share it. You are forcing all these people to become insured people, and you deduct from their wages the same rates of pay as you deduct from everybody else, but because they are not included in the Workmen's Compensation Act the deductions you make from their wages and the contributions of their employers will not be sufficient to make them desirable persons for an approved society. With regard to what has been said about the rates my information is that in many cases they are only taken on payment of increased rates to cover the increased risk.
They are a bad business proposition. The Attorney-General suggested that the Workmen's Compensation Act might be amended. The particular sub-section which excludes these men from the benefits of that Act is not one in the. original Workmen's Compensation Act, but is a Clause of the Act of 1906. No seamen were included at all in the original Act. In the Amending Act passed in 1906 by this Government seamen were included, but this particular class of men were specially excluded. I think the Government did that for good reasons. I do not suppose they are willing to alter that, at any rate, they are blocking the Bill which my hon. 1185 Friend has introduced for the purpose of altering it. Under those circumstances it is no good the Attorney-General referring us to our power to alter an Act which they are not prepared to see altered. We must deal with it, if we are to deal with it at all, in this Bill. I think a real case of hardship has been disclosed, and I do not think it ought to be disposed of by the mere technical objection that under the Financial Resolution my hon. Friend cannot move the Amendment in the form he would desire to move it.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI think there is some misapprehension. So far as I understand the facts relating to fishermen, the real risk under the Workmen's Compensation Act is not in respect of accidents which may cause them to be laid up for some time, but in respect of fatal accidents. What makes the fisherman a risk is not the question of his health, because he leads a healthy occupation and, as a rule, is a very healthy life—that is why an approved society would be glad to have him—but it is that they are afraid of funeral and death benefits. If they had to pay death benefits, it would be a serious matter.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINAnd accidents.
§ 1.0 A.M.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSAn accident to a fisherman is usually a fatal accident. They must be more fatal than to persons in other occupations of life. That is certainly the information which is supplied to me from a very good source. If I may I will put a question to the right hon. Gentleman. Supposing he was managing an approved society, and received an offer of a number of share fishermen, strong, healthy men, the best lives, usually, that you can find, or at any rate, amongst the best as regards sickness, I think he would be very glad indeed to take them.
§ Mr. CAVEWith all respect to the Attorney-General, he has not answered the point. The point is that a distinction is made by this Bill to the prejudice of the fishermen. Under the present system they can join a friendly society on equal terms with other people so far as accident goes. The present friendly society pays sickness benefit in case of accident. Under the new law which we are now making the case will be different. A friendly society which takes an ordinary employed person will be 1186 able to take him, because, they will say, in case of accident we shall not have to pay sick benefit. But with the share fishermen there is a difference. They will take a greater risk and they will be less willing to take him. I do think that ought to be met. I quite agree that there is a difficulty, but there are two ways of meeting it. One is to give my hon. Friend the assurance he wants, that the Bill which he has pressed with so much vigour and so much knowledge, shall be considered. The other way is to meet the case specially under this Bill. I do not know whether my hon. Friend would be content with a suggestion that in the case of the share fisherman he shall, in consideration of this benefit, this extra benefit, in case of accident, get a somewhat smaller sum by way of sickness allowance. That might possibly meet the point. I do not know whether the Government would consider that. At all events there is a real grievance to a special class of men which ought to receive more consideration.
§ Mr. BOOTHI think I can remove the idea of a grievance. There will be competition for these share fishermen by the approved societies that will be formed under this Act. I think I can guarantee that the ten or twelve that will come into Grimsby will be only too desirous to bring all these men in. They are very desirable people. I believe the great friendly societies, and the approved societies which will be branches of the insurance companies, will be only too ready to get these men in. They would not be charged or fined, but welcomed in a very keen degree. I hope that with that assurance the hon. Member will be satisfied.
§ Sir GEORGE DOUGHTYI am sorry I cannot accept the assurance; I should want some higher authority. But the right hon. Gentleman has not conceived the real position. All the fishermen are not outside the Act. About seventy per cent. of the fishermen are included in the Workmen's Compensation Act, and that seventy per cent., naturally, will join the approved societies. The men that are not under the Workmen's Compensation Act will be placed in a serious disability when this Bill becomes law. May I say that the risk is much more considerable than ten per cent. As a matter of fact in the insurance companies that have insured fishermen threepence per week is about the amount that represents the risk that the insurance company pays, not for the loss of life but for the 1187 sickness and accidents that occur other than loss of life. I can assure the Attorney-General that it is not the question of the loss of life which costs a serious sum of money; it is the minor accidents that are constantly occurring, and larger accidents also, I am sorry to say, which cost so much to the insurance companies. It is because of these large charges that I am quite certain approved societies will not accept these men at the same price as they accept other men under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It is quite clear there is a serious disability. All I ask for is that the Government will assist in some way to remove this disability. They can do it, if they will assist in passing the small Bill to which I have referred. I am sure that everybody who knows what the Bill does will be in favour of it.
§ Mr. BRYCEI hope the Attorney-General will listen to the appeal of the hon. Baronet. This is a request that concerns not only Grimsby and the East of England, but the North-East of Scotland to a very large extent, because there is a very large number of share fishermen there. Perhaps the hon. Member who has
§ guaranteed the approach of these approved societies to Grimsby will assure us also of their approach to the North-East of Scotland.
§ Mr. BRYCEI am very glad to hear it; the hon. Member is a person of great authority. In the meantime I cannot conceive that the hon. Baronet will very much like the way in which the Government have dealt with his case.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEMay I ask whether this type of workman will come under the Bill as a compulsorily insured person? My impression is that they will not. However, if the Government intend to lend a favourable ear to the appeal on behalf of the little Bill in which the hon. Baronet is interested, I hope the same Member will remember the taxicab drivers of London and put them in the same position.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSAnd a good many more.
§ Question put, "That those words be-there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 51; Noes, 149.
1189| Division No. 290.] | AYES. | [1.10 a.m. |
| Adamson, William | Fell, Arthur | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas |
| Ashley, W. W | Forster, Henry William | Mount, William Arthur |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gelder, Sir W. A. | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Barnston, Harry | Goldsmith, Frank | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Goldstone, Frank | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.) |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Guinness, Hon. W. E. | Scott, Leslie (Liverpool, Exchange) |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) | Talbot, Lord E. |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Hill-Wood, Samuel | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Hohler, G. F. | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Cassel, Felix | Hope. James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Cave, George | Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Chaloner, Col. Ft. G. W. | Hunt, Rowland | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r) | Kyffin-Taylor, G. | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Larmor, Sir J. | |
| Clynes, J. R. | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir George Doughty and Mr. Joynson-Hicks. |
| Dixon, C. H. | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | |
| Eyres-Monsell, B. M. | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | |
| Falle, Bertram Godfrey | ||
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Elverston, Sir Harold |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) | Clough, William | Ferens, T. R. |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Condon, Thomas Joseph | Ffrench, Peter |
| Armitage, Robert | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Flavin, Michael Joseph |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Furness, Stephen |
| Barry, Redmond John | Crumley, Patrick | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd |
| Barton, W. | Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Gill, A. H. |
| Beale, W. P. | Davies, E. William (Eifion) | Glanville, H. J. |
| Bentham, G. J. | Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Greig, Colonel J. W. |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Dawes, J. A. | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Delany, William | Gulland, John W. |
| Brace, William | Doris, William | Hackett, J. |
| Brunner, J. F. L. | Duffy, William J. | Hancock, John George |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Harwood, George | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Haworth, Sir Arthur A. | M'Laren, Henry Duncan (Leics.) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Hayden, John Patrick | M'Laren, Walter S. B. (Ches., Crewe) | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Hayward, Evan | Manfield, Harry | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Helme, Norval Watson | Meagher, Michael | Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B. |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Mond, Sir Alfred | Sheehy, David |
| Henry, Sir Charles S. | Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Higham, John Sharp | Nicholson, Charles N, (Doncaster) | Shortt, Edward |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Nolan, Joseph | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Norman, Sir Henry | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Hughes, Spencer Leigh | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Illingworth, Percy H. | O'Doherty, Philip | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Ogden, Fred | Tennant, Harold John |
| John, Edward Thomas | Parker, James (Halifax) | Thomas, J. H. (Derby) |
| Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Pearson, Hon. Weetman H. M. | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Pointer, Joseph | Wardle, G. J. |
| Jowett, Frederick William | Pollard, Sir George H. | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Joyce, Michael | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Keating, M. | Raffan, Peter Wilson | Webb, H. |
| Kelly, Edward | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| King, Joseph (Somerset, North) | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Lansbury, George | Reddy, M. | Wilkle, Alexander |
| Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rl'nd, Cockerm'th) | Rendall, Atheistan | Williams, John (Glamorgan) |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Richards, Thomas | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Roberts, George H. (Norwich) | |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Dudley Ward and Mr. Wedgwood Benn. |
| Maclean, Donald | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | |
| Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T, J. | Robinson, Sidney |
Question, "That the words proposed be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. ELLIS DAVIESI beg to move to leave out paragraph (c).
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI agree to that.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI beg to move, in paragraph (d), to omit the words "Nothing in this Section shall affect the right of an employer to redeem a weekly payment by payment of a lump sum in any case where he is entitled to do so under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, but where he exercises such a right he" and to insert instead thereof the words "Where an agreement is made as to the amount of such compensation as aforesaid, or as to the redemption of a weekly payment by a lump sum under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, the employer" ["shall within three days thereafter."]
As my hon. and learned Friend has pointed out quite rightly, the effect of leaving out paragraph (c) makes it necessary to introduce some amendment to paragraph (d). I think it would be better, and would save the time of the Committee, if I said that the Government intend to accept certain Amendments which will make the Clause read as follows: "Where an agreement is made as to the amount of such compensation as aforesaid, or as to the redemption of a weekly payment by a lump sum under the Workmen's Compen- 1190 sation Act, 1906, the employer shall, within three days thereafter, send to the Insurance Commissioners or to the society or committee concerned, notice in writing of such agreement, giving the prescribed particulars thereof, and paragraph (d) to paragraph (9) of the Second Schedule of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, (which relates to the powers of registrars of county courts to refuse to record memoranda of agreements and to refer the matter to the judge) shall, in cases where the workman is an injured person, apply to agreements as to the amount of compensation in like manner as to agreements as to the redemption of weekly payments by lump sums and the society or committee concerned may appear to be heard before the registrar or judge in any proceedings preliminary to the memoranda. The substance of it is this: that an agreement may be made as to the amount of the compensation, but when it is made it is necessary to carry out exactly the same form as under the Workmen's Compensation Act where you have an agreement, in the case of a man receiving a weekly payment, to take a lump sum, in other words to redeem a weekly payment by a lump sum. In that case you have by paragraph (9) of the Second Schedule of that Act to send notice to the Registrar of the County Court and then that notice is recorded unless he considers that the amount to be paid to the workman is inadequate. If he thinks 1191 the agreement has been arrived at upon an inadequate basis what he does is to refer it to the Judge, and in that case the employer would be heard upon the matter. It is for that reason that we have to provide here that the society or committee shall also be entitled to be heard in the same way as the employer would be entitled to be heard under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It amounts to this, that notice of the agreement has to be given to the Registrar in order that he may, before he records it, consider whether the terms are adequate. It is for the purpose of carrying that out that we have introduced the words in the Amendment.
§ Mr. S. WALSHI rise for the purpose not of grinding an axe of my own, but of ascertaining so far as I can what is the position of those organisations which for fourteen years have been administering the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act —with what I submit to be the most beneficial results to the workmen themselves— under the paragraphs that have already been agreed to and under the provisions now being submitted to the Committee.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI do not think it affects them at all. There is a question which arises hereafter, but not on this Amendment. I think I know the point to which the hon. Member refers, but it really does not arise on any of the Amendments I am moving.
§ Mr. S. WALSHThe proviso read out by the learned Attorney-General is really so lengthy that I am not quite sure whether I have the hang of it. In the preceding paragraph the right is reserved to friendly societies or committees to determine what shall be the weekly value of a lump sum. That will make it impossible for any person to commute any benefits he may be entitled to except with the approval of the friendly society or the committee.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSOn a point of Order. Have we not already deleted that paragraph?
§ Mr. S. WALSHIf paragraph (c) has gone it does largely modify my position.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThese Amendments are introduced because paragraph (c) is gone. I accepted the Amendment to omit paragraph (c).
§ Mr. S. WALSHIt went while I was gone also.
§ Mr. ALBERT SMITHThe Amendment proposed by the Attorney-General is a long one. I want to ask whether the relations between a trade union member and his society on the one hand and his employer on the other hand as to the administration of the Workmen's Compensation Act are going to be in any way disturbed by it.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSNot by this. The point arises later.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThat is all. This is simply introduced for the purpose of giving the workman the same benefit he has now of the protection of the registrar and judge of the county court who have to see that the agreement made is adequate.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSThe Attorney-General has not quite explained the matter. The idea is to give the workman some protection. Incidentally it alters the Workmen's Compensation Act. The Attorney-General has not explained that there is an alteration which I am bound to say is not to the advantage of the employer or of the workman. Under the provisions of that Act when an agreement is made between an adult in full possession of his sense and his employer it cannot be touched by anybody.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSAre you reading the Second Schedule paragraph (9)?
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSYes. If the Attorney-General will look at paragraph (9), Sub-section (d), of the Second Schedule of the Workmen's Compensation Act, he will find it reads:—
Where it appears to the registrar of the county court, on any information which he considers sufficient, that an agreement as to the redemption of a weekly payment by a lump sum, or an agreement as to the amount of compensation payable to a person not under legal disability, or to dependents, ought not to be registered by reason of the inadequacy of the sum or amount"—and so forth, he can refer it to the judge. Therefore, under the provisions of the law as it stands, when a workman who is insured and goes to the employer and says "Let us settle," and it is settled for a £5 note or a £20 note, that agreement is final and conclusive. [Hon. MEMBERS: "NO, no."]
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSThe words the hon. Member has read shows that it is not.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI hope the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not think I am unduly cavilling. Although, thanks to the Attorney-General, some of us have had an opportunity of seeing this Amendment in manuscript, it is a striking example of the practice of the Government in not allowing us to have the Amendments sufficiently early. But for the courtesy of the Attorney-General no man in the Committee could have pretended to understand the words he read out. I will not delay the Committee, but I do press upon the Government, on the strength of what is happening now, that they will save time, trouble, and temper if they can make up their minds on this subject in time to place their Amendments on the Paper.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSLet me put my point quite clearly to the Attorney-General. Where a workman not under disability suffers an accident and makes an agreement with his employer as to compensation that agreement is final. It is only where a person is under a legal disability or the amount of compensation is payable to dependents that the Registrar can refuse to register.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI really do not think the hon. Gentleman can have followed what I said.
§ Mr. J. O'CONNORI have taken no part in the discussion up to the present because I leave it to hon. Members opposite to understand their own business, but I have some feelings about this question, and have some practice in the county courts, where agreements have been registered and where the registration of agreements has been refused. I have had no difficulty in following what the learned Attorney-General has said, perhaps because I have had some experience in this matter and know the difficulties of registration, and I do say, basing it upon my own experience, that the Amendment as read out by the learned Attorney-General meets all the requirements of the case. If any hon. Members were to honour me by coming to my chambers and asking my advice, I would unhesitatingly say that they were perfectly safe in relying upon the Amendment proposed by the learned Attorney-General.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
1194§ Sir GEORGE TOULMINI beg to move, in paragraph (d), to leave out the words "within three days" ["but where he exercises such right he shall, within three days thereafter, send to the Insurance Commissioners "].
I do not quite understand from the Attorney-General why it should be limited to three days. I am led to believe by those who have some experience of these agreements that it is rather too short a time, that in many cases the employer does not know how the sum is to be applied, and you are putting upon him a task which he is not able to perform. Perhaps the Attorney-General can explain it.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI think it would be desirable if we could give some longer period, and if the hon. Member will be content with that we will look into the matter. I can assure him we will give the longest time we can. I think it is possible to give four days, but I would ask the Committee to be satisfied to leave it there until we have looked into the matter more closely.
§ Sir G. TOULMINI would suggest that the words "as soon as practicable" would meet the case.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSIf it is to be done under the Workmen's Compensation Act it is no use saying "as soon as practicable."
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. BOOTHI beg to move, in paragraph (d), to leave out the words "or to the society or committee concerned" ["send to the Insurance Commissioners, or to the society or committee concerned, notice in writing of such redemption"].
What I want to ask is, whether in sending this information to these people the employer has not to have disclosed to him certain particulars. I understood it to be an essential part of the scheme that the employer does not know what society, trade union, or approved society, the man is in, and how can an employer send a notice to some one he does not know?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSWe are dealing now with the agreement which is provided for under the Amendment. Notice of that has to be sent to the Insurance Commissioners or to the society concerned, 1195 because you want the society or committee concerned to have the opportunity of appearing before the Registrar if they want to make any objection. They must have notice of the agreement. It must be sent to the society for them to appear. Of course, if the employer does not know anything about the society he will not send it to them, but will send it to the Insurance Commissioners. If he does know the society or committee he will send it direct to them.
§ Mr. BOOTHI am not raising the question on that at all. I am very much obliged to the Attorney-General for explaining to me how it would work. I think that is simple enough. What I am asking is this: Is not this going against the foundation principle of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech? He wished to avoid the possibility of the employer knowing what union the man belonged to. Is the Attorney-General satisfied on that point?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSYes.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Amendment made: In paragraph (d) leave out the word "redemption" ["notice in writing of such redemption"] and insert instead thereof the word "agreement."—[Sir Rufus Isaacs.]
§ Further Amendment proposed: In paragraph (d) leave out the words "particulars as to the amount of the lump sum and of the application thereof," and insert instead thereof the words "the prescribed particulars thereof, and proviso (d) to paragraph (9) of the Second Schedule of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906 (which relates to the powers of registrars of county courts to refuse to record memoranda of agreements and to refer the matter to the judge), shall in cases where the workman is an insured person apply to agreements as to the amount of compensation in like manner as to agreements as to the redemption of weekly payments by lump sums, and the society or committee concerned may appear and be heard before the registrar and the judge in any proceedings preliminary to the recording of the memorandum."—[Sir Rufus Isaacs.]
§ Mr. CAVEMay I submit to you that that is an Amendment of the Workmen's Compensation Act? I think you ruled another Amendment out of order on that ground.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANNo, that is a point which the Chair has to consider on the Bill, particularly on paragraph (c), which is now out of the Bill. The reason I was not able to take the Amendment just now was not that it amended the Workmen's Compensation Act, but that it had no necessary relation to the matters of the Bill. I cannot rule this Amendment out of order.
§ Mr. GILLI am not satisfied. Supposing an injured person is a member of a trade union. It is customary for trade union officials to deal with matters of this description, and they know exactly what a lump sum should amount to in redemption of weekly payment. Supposing they are not satisfied. Can they appear before the registrar and state their case in regard to their own member for whom they have always been accustomed to act? Can it be arranged that the trade union can take part in this matter and appear before the registrar?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSIt does not displace anybody. It gives the society or committee the right to appear which otherwise they would not have. It does not alter the practice in any other way.
§ Mr. WALSHDoes it not allow the society to appear of itself, per se? Can it send its officers, say, to lay the case before the county court judge or registrar as the case may be? Does not that give quite a superior power to the society or firm as against the powers already exercised by the trade unions? The trade unions cannot act in that manner except under one of the very obscure provisions of the rules of court—a provision which is not exercised once in ten thousand times. We have to appear, if at all as trade union representatives, by a solicitor or by counsel, and a very good thing it has been for counsel. But still I think that here there is a real point. Those powers are nearly always used by the trade unions on behalf of the injured workman, and we can honestly say that they have been exercised with the completest advantage to everybody, because hundreds of thousands of pounds have been settled in this manner, and I do not think up to now one single word of offence has been said against the trade union authorities, and the employers themselves have been satisfied that we have brought the highest code of conduct to the work. Why there should be given to people who know very little about the intricacies a power that has not hitherto 1197 been exercised by the trade unions is really quite beyond my imagination to understand. I think at least we ought to be put on the same level if there is to be any alteration at all.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI am quite prepared to join with the hon. Member for Ince, and I can assure him that my speech will have no reference to the Luton election. I entirely agree that trade unions should act on behalf of the injured. My point against this Amendment is this: When the trade union official acting on behalf of the injured man has gone to the employer and settled with the employer for a lump sum down, five, ten, twenty, or any number of pounds, and has got the man back to work again as quickly as possible, they have done the work very well on behalf of the workman. Now, for the first time, the Government has imported a Clause into this Bill that all those agreements entered into between the trade union officials and the employer, between two men who are in full possession of their senses, are no longer to be binding, or at all events that they are to be subject to the decision of the county court judge, and the friendly society can come in over and above the trade union official and say to the judge, "That agreement is not a good one, and I want to upset it." I do suggest that could not be the wish of hon. Gentlemen acting as they have done on behalf of the trade unions. I do not think it is for the benefit either of the working men or of the employers.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSMay I say one word possibly to remove any misapprehension. If there is any doubt about the proposed Amendment I will reconsider the words. There need be no difficulty. I thought "society" would cover "trade union." Of course there might be the case in which a trade union official might be appealing when the member appealing is not a member of the approved society.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDI am very anxious that this Bill should go on, but the Amendment which has now been moved is one that may or may not—and it certainly may be of very considerable importance in the working of the Compensation Act so far as trade unions are concerned. I am bound to say we would like to be a little bit more comfortable in our minds than we are with regard to what is really going to happen. I am rather unwilling to report Progress, but I think we ought to see this and have suffi- 1198 cient time to consider it very carefully before voting one way or another. My friends around me hold very strong views against certain provisions o£ this Clause. We are opposed to a complexity of authorities dealing with workmen's compensation. The method followed up till now has been, on the whole, not only satisfactory, but very successful from the workmen's point of view. We must, in duty bound, scrutinise with the greatest care any alterations proposed by this Clause. I hope, therefore, the Government will take this matter into consideration, and allow us to adjourn now. I press the matter further in view of the very important subjects upon which we have just entered.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI trust the Government will give a favourable reply to the appeal the hon. Gentleman has just made. We have arrived at a matter which is complicated, and which very closely concerns the interests of the great labour bodies and, I think, is of very considerable importance to the employers. We are discussing an Amendment about which there is some doubt and in regard to which the Attorney-General thinks it may be necessary for him to make some alteration in the words he has proposed. We have reached the hour of two o'clock. I urge the Government, and particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has not been unfairly treated, to accept the Motion of the hon. Member for Leicester.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI recognise what the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman has just said. Our idea was that we might get on so that we could next begin with the medical benefits. I see we cannot get Clause 12 to-night without remaining much longer than I anticipated. I think, however, that we might get to the end of Clause 11. It is far better that we should deal with it when the whole matter is fresh in our minds rather than begin again with a sort of the remnants, as it were, of the Clause. If my hon. Friend (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) thinks these words may be full of peril, there is nothing to prevent our considering the matter on Report. I think we might take the words which are not considered at all controversial and take the other words later on. We do not want to take any fresh words not on the Paper and which are regarded as controversial or, whether controversial or not, are regarded with any sense of suspicion by hon. Members. I do hope, however, that we will complete Clause 11.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSWhat I propose to do is to leave out the words which give rise to suspicion so that the words can be put on the Paper and be properly discussed. I think that would meet the objection which has been raised in regard to the Clause.
§ Mr. J. THOMASWould that meet the position of friendly societies approved under this Bill but practically limited to one class of employés, such as a railway society which would become approved? Here you would have the anomaly, if this society was the body responsible for claiming compensation, that you would not only rule the trade union out entirely but you would, practically throw the responsibility of suing upon the men concerned. I think what ought to be distinctly and firmly laid down on this point is this—
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWe have withdrawn that.
§ Mr. J. THOMASDoes that mean that so far as the approved society is concerned they have nothing whatever to do with compensation?
§ 2.0 A.M.
§ Mr. S. WALSHI am sure the right hon. Gentleman cannot complain of the reception his Bill has received to-day. [Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I have listened to almost every word that has been said and although I quite admit that progress has not been made as quickly as it might have been, yet this is really one of the most important Clauses in the whole Bill. It has the most serious effect upon one of the most important social measures that has ever been passed in the history of the country. We are here after all in a specially representative capacity. It is not because we dislike the whole Bill or because we are offering any captious opposition. Surely when we have the interests of hundreds of thousands of members to represent it is not an unfair proposal to make that the right hon. Gentleman should give a little more time for representations being made. The particular body I speak for has in it over six hundred thousand people with all the dependent people concerned. Their interests in this particular Clause are vast. We have not the words before us, and we really cannot judge them as read out. We have not trained legal minds, and do not know the exact bearing of the words proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Surely the right hon. Gentleman himself, in the interests of speedier progress upon the 1200 non-contentious or less contentious parts, of the Bill, would be very well advised to allow us to rest and to come with fresher minds to the consideration of the point. It is now two o'clock. The right hon. Gentleman, when he made the generous, statement at the commencement of the Bill that he wanted the whole House to cooperate with him and that he wanted us all to bring our best minds to making the measure a good one, surely meant that in reality. Some of us have been on these premises to-day for over fifteen hours continuously. We were at Committee first thing in the morning, and in Committee throughout the day on this Bill, and we have not been away from the premises. [HON. MEMBERS: "So have we."] Surely that is one reason why, jaded and dull as we are, that the right hon. Gentleman should see that this particular Clause does really need more consideration, that we ought to have it on paper, so that we can compare it with what has gone before. We cannot do that at present. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will meet the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Opposition Bench (Mr. Austen Chamberlain), and let this matter have the proper consideration it deserves. We are not suggesting this out of captious, opposition.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEReally, I think the hon. Member is unreasonable. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Ramsay Macdonald) got up and said he would like to see these words on paper before we proceeded to consider them. We said we would withdraw the words. What more can we do? [HON. MEMBERS: "We have not seen the others."] Those have been disposed of already. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Surely they have been added to-the Bill.
§ Mr. CAVEOn a point of Order. The whole of this Amendment to paragraph (9), of the Second Schedule of the Workmen's. Compensation Act is new, and has not been added to the Bill at all.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEVery well. With regard to these words there is no dispute at all. The whole point has arisen in reference to the words at the end and their effect. I hope hon. Members will consider the general interests of the Bill, because, after all, the Government's view was that this Bill could be considered much, better under other arrangements. That was not the view of several sections in the House, notably that to which the hon. 1201 Member (Mr. Walsh) belongs, and we decided to suspend the Eleven o'clock Rule. We have not yet had a very late sitting on the Bill such as we had on the Finance Bill last year or the year before. We have been discussing this Bill for some days and I hope hon. Members will let us proceed. I am not asking for something which is unreasonable. The hon. Member says he has been here for fifteen hours. I have been here longer. I hope we may get this Clause to-night. If there is any objection to these latter words we will leave them out now and put them down for the Report stage.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDThe position is quite frankly this: We are very suspicious of the whole of this Clause. The Chancellor of the Exchequer knew that from the beginning. We are exceedingly suspicious of an Amendment which is technical and which we have not had sufficient time to seriously consider. I am very anxious to get the Bill proceeded with, and so far as I am concerned I am quite willing to go on, especially provided that these latter words are not now going to be inserted. That will give us an opportunity of considering the effect of these words before the Report stage.
§ Mr. CAVEI do not want to stop progress, but I doubt very much whether these words ought to be added, and I should like to consider the question. Will the Government agree if I move to leave out everything after the word "thereof"? They can on Report bring up not part, but the whole of their Amendment. We shall then have it on the Paper and consider it as a whole.
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ Mr. CAVEI beg to move to omit all the words after the word "thereof" ["the prescribed particulars thereof."]
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSWhat I suggest as a reasonable way of meeting the matter is this: We have discussed everything up to the question of the society or committee concerned appearing before the Registrar. Surely it would be better to insert the words as they are in the Act, and if there is any question regarding them the whole matter can come up on Report stage, and we can discuss it again, when hon. Mem- 1202 bers will have an opportunity of reopening the whole question. I do not think, anybody would be injured by that.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANDoes the hon. Member press his Amendment?
§ Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSI will only move the Amendment down to the words "weekly payments by lump sums," and I therefore beg to move to amend the proposed Amendment by omitting the words "and the society or committee concerned may appear and be heard before the registrar and the judge in any proceedings preliminary to the recording of the memorandum."
§ Question, "That those words stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
§ Proposed Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ Mr. JOYNSON-HICKSI beg to move to leave out paragraph (e).
I do not know whether the Government will accept this. I have never personally known a ease in which a man has had a reasonable claim on his employer in which the trade union has refused to take it up, but under the provisions of this paragraph, after the point has been discussed between, the injured man and his trade union, then, the approved society has the right to come along and insist on taking proceedings, and I cannot help thinking that this is going to add enormously to the amount of litigation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. A great advantage under the Act has been the very clear and easy way in which claims have been settled, but here-is a Clause which is practically inviting approved societies to take up claims which have been dropped by trade unions—claims which are not good enough for a workman himself to take up, and, after all, a man is not going to refuse to press a claim if there is any good ground for it at all, and when he has dropped it and the trade union has dropped it, the approved society is invited by this Bill to take it up and have a go against the employer. I venture to suggest that no one has asked for this Clause. Trades unions, workmen, and employers do not want it, because it increases the prospect of litigation.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI do not think the hon. Gentleman can have seriously 1203 considered what this really means. It means that the employer would be relieved of his liability because if the workman knows that he can get his money out of the friendly society or trade union he would say, "It is much easier to get it out of my trade union or friendly society," and he would not bother to get it out of the employer. If you leave out this paragraph it would relieve the employer of his liability under the Employers' Liability Act.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI do not quite take the same point as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford, but very serious objections have been stated to me by members of friendly societies as to the way in which this Clause will work. The point apparently is this: where a member of a friendly society is entitled to any compensation and neglects to take proceedings, the friendly society has the choice of two courses—either they may take proceedings in his name or withhold the payment of any benefit to which such person may be entitled. The point put to me is that the friendly society would naturally take the latter course, because it would be very difficult for them to take the former. In the former course they would have to act at their own expense, and, even if successful, they could not recover the expense of the proceedings. The society might say to a man, "You are entitled to recover compensation." The man concerned would say, "I don't see my way to take proceedings; you ought to do it." They would say, "You must do it or we will withhold the benefit from you," and in that way the unfortunate man would suffer. The real difficulty here is that they cannot recover the expenses of their proceedings even if successful, and I think the point would be met to some extent if the words "after deducting the expense of such proceeding" were put in.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThere is another Amendment later on dealing with that, and we propose to accept it.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEThat will meet me to that extent.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINDoes not the last part of the paragraph to which my hon. Friend has been referring really meet the point raised by the Chancellor of the Exchequer! What I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman is whether you ought to keep in the whole Subsection. Clearly a society ought not to be called upon to pay for the negligence of a man 1204 who has a claim and has not tried to enforce it. Would not the Chancellor of the Exchequer's object be quite sufficiently attained if he authorised a society in such a case to withhold the payment of benefit to the man, that is to say, the man not having chosen to claim compensation which ho might have got from the employer, he should not be allowed to turn round and say, "As I have no compensation from the employer, you must pay it." It would then be the man's business to take action, if ground for action there were, and it would be the society's right to refuse the payment if the man had failed to take action.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEUnless there is a power of this kind—a power which trade unions very often exercise at the present time to recover from the employer—this scheme would be a scheme rather for the relief of the liability now incurred under the Compensation Act. I think the man himself ought to be protected against a thing of that sort. I can well understand that if he likes to bring an action himself he might prefer leaving it to the society, and, in fact, that is really what happens in many cases. I know many cases where the trades union takes practically the odium as it were of bringing the action where a man says he will not bring the action. If there is a power of this kind he can always shift that odium upon his society.
§ Mr. ALBERT SMITHSupposing a society compelled an insured person to take action under this Bill and money has been advanced to meet the cost of the action, what is the position of the insured person?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWe propose to meet that by accepting the Amendment which is down later on the Paper.
§ Mr. S. WALSHThe reason I think more consideration ought to be given to this Sub-section, is this: it starts off with a presumption which may or may not be founded on fact—"Where the insured person is entitled to any such compensation or damages as aforesaid." To begin, with, the term is a most curious one when you take into consideration the complexities of the various laws that are referred to in this Clause. There seems to be a tendency on the part of almost every speaker to take the question of compensation as being the one guiding law. There is the matter of common law, than which there is nothing more obscure in the whole range of 1205 English. The learned Gentleman on the Front Bench knows it quite well. There is the matter of the Employers' Liability Act that is holed and honeycombed with a thousand restrictions and dangers. Yet an approved society, many officered by a body of men who can have had no experience at all practically, are to be called upon in the first instance. The trade unions act for at least two million members. It may be said that those two million members represent six million persons at the very least. There are therefore about eight million persons represented directly or indirectly by the trade unions. Supposing the trade union officer, say a miner's agent, the secretary of the railway workers, the secretary of the textile workers, has considered a person's case, and has said, "I do not think you have any chance at all of recovering compensation, because you will probably be indicted as having brought the accident about by your own serious and wilful misconduct." But it would still be left within the competence of the officers of the approved society to say, "We shall take proceedings, whatever you think; we think you ought to act." Or, supposing he had the option of an alternative remedy under the Employers' Liability Act, as is usual in many cases now, and the trade union officer again said, "No, you have contributed in some degree, in a degree fatal to your claim, to that accident. The plea of contributory negligence will be set up, and you will fail in your action." It would still be within the competence of the approved society to say, "You must take action or we will stop your benefit."
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWhat I say is that the action that is taken is taken at the cost of the approved society. Would my hon. Friend tell me what he proposes? He is dealing with cases that affect trade unions. They represent only about two millions of workmen. There are sixteen millions in this Bill. What does he propose to do with the fourteen millions who are not in any trade union at all? Does he propose that there shall be no protection for them; that they shall be left in such a plight that they will relieve the employer at the expense of their society?
§ Mr. S. WALSHI think that is rather hard of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon me. I was asking him to pay attention to the point that I urged, that the trade unions represent directly two million of people, that they represent directly and indirectly a population of eight millions, 1206 and about three-fifths of those eight millions will be insured persons under this Rill. It is not for me to suggest what should be done. This is the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. The point I am urging is this. The right hon. Gentleman says that if the approved society takes proceedings it does so at its own cost. But suppose they do not choose to take proceedings and stop a man's benefits? They can do that. They could say, "It may be that you have the best advice that can be given, that the trade union officers know all about the law of which we know comparatively little, but unless you take action we will withhold your benefit." Surely that condition cannot be a fair one; surely the Subsection cannot be held to be a fair one. The right hon. Gentleman is hardly fair when he says," What do you propose?" It is his Bill. We have a right to say to him: What do you propose in face of these admitted difficulties? If this goes to a Division I shall be very happy in supporting the deletion.
§ Mr. HOLTI do hope my right hon. Friend will reconsider his attitude about this. It is a very serious thing for any society, on behalf of a grown-up person to take action for him against somebody else with whom he does not want to quarrel. There are a great many people insured under this Bill besides what are roughly known as working men. Take the case of a clerk getting £120 a year—a man living on the best of terms with his employer. He may or may not have a technical claim against the employer. Between the two of them the thing is made right to the satisfaction of the clerk. Thereupon in steps the society and says, "We do not know anything about it; we are going to bring an action against your employer on your behalf." That is only making bad blood, and I believe it is illegal. But that is exactly what is going to be done in this case it may be done. I really do not think that this Sub-section as it stands is satisfactory. I do hope my right hon. Friend will agree to its deletion.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI understand that from the employer's point of view it would be very desirable to leave the Clause out. Let me put another case to my hon. Friends. Supposing a man received an accident and his employer said to him, "Why should you bring an action against me in respect of the accident? You are insured in your friendly society or trade union. Why do you not claim 1207 against your trade union or your approved society, and get your money there?" Unless paragraph (e) stands he could do that, and, of course, the employer would in every case gain at the expense of the society. I should think that was against the interest of the society, and I do not think that in the long run it would be in the interest of the employé. In the end it would practically be a very large subsidy to the employers of this country, relieving them of their liability. I think that is perfectly obvious to anyone. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Worcester saw that at once and pointed it out. That is what would happen. We do not want a workman to be put in that invidious position of having pressure brought to bear upon him. We want him to claim his rights under the Workmen's Compensation Act. That is the whole point of this Clause.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDI think that point of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement is not very good. If a workman receives an injury in the course of his employment and claims against his society on the ground that he is suffering from sickness he has to get a medical certificate. If the doctor is in collusion paragraph (e) does not help him, because his society has got a certificate from the medical gentleman that a certain member of the society is suffering from sickness and comes under the Bill. So he is not helped by paragraph (e). The effect of that Clause seems to be simply that a society can say to one of its members, "You are injured and you ought to prosecute." That means that in a great many cases you are going to have rival societies competing for the privilege of prosecuting under the Workmen's Compensation Act. You cannot help it.
It is a most objectionable step to take to try and encourage new sources of prosecution under the Workmen's Compensation Act. It is all very well to talk about the non-unionist. It appears to be beneficial to him, but it is not. It simply means that certain machinery which has grown up since the first Workmen's Compensation Act was passed has got altogether to be revised and be subject to certain competition which in the long run will turn out to be very bad and disadvantageous. The position of the non-unionist at present is that if he receives an injury, let us assume he claims upon his society. His society 1208 has got to get the medical certificate, which states it is not a case of sickness under the Act because the right hon. Gentleman is equally adequately safeguarded in the first two lines of the Clause. If the certificate states the sickness is owing to an accident, and is not sickness under this Act, then the member must either go without his compensation at all or must claim against his employer. As a matter of fact the cases will work out after this Act is passed as they do now except that members of approved societies will receive more inducement than they have now to go to their regular societies rather than to get their claims met under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThe trade unions now exercise this right and impose it upon their members. What my hon. Friend (Mr. E. Macdonald) is doing is to deny to the friendly societies the very right trade unions have got at the present moment. All I want to claim is that there should be the same freedom and rights for the friendly societies to take this action as is exercised now by the trade unions as a matter of policy and a matter of rule. I have always said trade unions should receive the same treatment as friendly societies, but I have also said that friendly societies should be treated the same as trade unions. That is the policy laid down in this Clause.
§ Mr. S. WALSHMight I suggest a form of words that might perhaps help the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If an insured person is at the time of his accident, and has been before the passing of this Act, a member of a trade union or other organisation whose officers have recommended him not to take proceedings, then, there ought not to be an alternative to the approved societies to stop his benefits. I only desire to say that this is not captious criticism.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGESo long as the friendly societies have got the same rights I do not mind words of that kind. I shall, of course, have to consider the form of words. I see what hon. Members want. All I want is that there shall be the same protection for a man who is a member of a friendly society. I shall consider the bringing up of a form of words to protect the case of the trade unionist.
§ Mr. CAVEI would suggest another form of words. I think a non-unionist ought to be protected. I quite see the object of the Sub-section, and see that 1209 something should be done. The position of the non-unionist is this. Take the case of the servant girl who is injured in the street by an omnibus. The Committee might say, "We think you have a right to action. You sue, but unless you sue we will not give you any benefit at all—sickness or medical benefit. It may be you think you have no right, and you would rather not run the risk, as you cannot afford it, but sue you must." Would it meet the case to say that the consent of the Insurance Commissioners or some independent body should be required before the society or committee ever sued for or withheld benefit?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI think the hon. and learned Gentleman will find that is there—the protection of Insurance Commissioners in this case. If there is any doubt about it, it is really protected. I am perfectly prepared to meet the case of the trade unionist.
§ Mr. HOHLERI object to this Clause as it stands. I should not object to it if it were framed to enable an approved society to assist the man in his litigation. That power is of great value to the working man, because he is often unable to plead the Act for himself. I object to the Clause because it does not contain a provision that an approved society can take action on behalf of a man, giving him an indemnity against costs. A society may take action in his name, but may lose it. This applies to both the voluntary contributor and the employed contributor. What is his position if the action is lost? He is liable for the costs and not the approved society, with the result that an order may be made against him for monthly or weekly payments, which would be a very serious matter for him. The Clause should give proper protection in that respect. I also object to it because it contains merely one alternative, which is that if the approved society does not bring an action they can withhold the man's benefit. I certainly object to the Clause as drawn, and I shall certainly vote against it.
§ Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONWe have always been led to understand that there was a strong desire among all sections of politicians to minimise the amount of litigation in connection with the Workmen's Compensation Act. I am seriously apprehensive that if this Clause goes through as it is in the Bill we are going to provide a weapon to encourage litigation. The 1210 number of insured persons which is going to constitute an approved society has not yet been definitely fixed. We know the number in the Bill, but I think all sections outside this House are clamouring for a considerable reduction in that number. That simply means that we are going to have a very large number of approved societies working under the Bill. We are putting a weapon into their hands to urge insured persons to take action under this Section. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his last remarks, said he wanted the friendly societies to have the same privilege under it as the trade unions. I do not think he has made out a case for that. May I suggest that the work that the friendly societies have been doing, so far as the Workmen's Compensation Act is concerned, is infinitesimal compared with the work that the trade unions have been doing. The trade unions are industrial organisations. It is their business to look after the interests of their members in connection with the Workmen's Compensation Act.
I do not know, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer may be able to tell me, of any of our friendly societies that have hitherto done this work in connection with the defending of their members' cases in industrial actions. That point has been rather overlooked by both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his legal advisers. After the trade unions have set up all the machinery and have been doing the work to the advantage of thousands of working people in this country, the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes along and is going to incite the approved societies outside the trade unions, whether they are large friendly societies or small benefit clubs, to enter into competition with what hitherto has been the legitimate work of the trade unions—a work they have done to the satisfaction of the members concerned and to the advantage of the general community. The hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth) says, "Only for their own members." Quite so. But we know that he is going to make it his business, when not engaged in this House, to organise societies as approved societies. He has repeatedly told us so, and said he would be glad to come down into some of our constituencies and show us how it could be done.
§ Mr. ARTHUR HENDERSONI am within the recollection of the Committee. 1211 [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Does the hon. Member admit that he is prepared to do it? If he is, then we are going to have any number of these societies, and the more there are the more they are going to compete with the legitimate functions of the trade unions so far as protecting workmen under the Workmen's Compensation Act is concerned. I do not know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer really intends that. If he does all I have to say is that the trade unionists in the country who have hitherto given their support and approval to this Bill will be surprised when they read the newspapers to-morrow morning and find that the friendly societies are to compete with them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members say "Oh!" but they cannot claim to know more about the work of trade unions than those of us who for well on into thirty years have been working officially in connection with trade unions. It is because we feel strongly that we make this stand. If hon. Members want to defend the action of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in saying there shall be a form of competition with our unions, I hope they will be bold enough to rise and express their opinions and not merely say "Oh!" when we as officials of the unions are doing our best to protect them.
Mr. C. EDWARDSI am not going to follow the wonderful Free Trade doctrine that has just been laid down by the hon. Member. I do not suppose anybody will question my sincere regard for the preservation intact of all the powers of the trade unions in this country, but looking at the thing with absolutely sympathetic regard for trade unions, I rise to say that I trust the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not minimise this provision in the least degree. I have had a great deal of experience in connection with trade unions, and in connection with litigation for compensation, and I say that it is of imperative importance that you should have a provision of this sort. No one was more ardent than the trades unions of this country in connection with the Workmen's Compensation Act in insisting on employers and workmen being prevented from entering into secret and surreptitious agreements for the settlement of claims for compensation; and for the settlement of a compensation claim to be binding it has to be registered and approved in a county court, because, as every trade unionist here knows perfectly well, there 1212 is a constant effort on the part of the employer, and still more on the part of insurance companies with whom the employers are insured against accident happening to their workmen, to drive hard and unconscionable bargains with the workmen in settlement of their claims. That is what happens now without there being any incentive on the part of the workmen to come to any settlement. But under the whole scheme of the Bill there would be a very active and a very keen incentive indeed given to the workmen—that is to say, he is, in the absence of this provision in the event of an accident, guaranteed the equivalent of his compensation money from his society. What is there to prevent a workman who is entitled say to a sum of £200 or £300 damages for accident either at common law or under the employers' liability going to his employer, entering into a collusive agreement with his employer for £100 down, nothing to be said about it, and then to say he would take no proceedings, and then come upon the society under the Bill and get his full compensation.
Not merely in the economic interests of the trades unions, but in the moral interests of the workmen constituting the organisation of these societies, it is imperative that you should have a provision of this sort, and I quite recognise, and I am quite sure from what the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said, that a proper provision will be made to safeguard the interests of the trades unions. The position, if I understand it, is this: approximately 16,000,000 will be insured under this Bill. Of these 16,000,000, two millions are-trade unionists. With the remaining fourteen millions the members of trades unions sitting on these benches are not directly concerned, so that if it is left entirely free for those fourteen millions to be dealt with as to claims for compensation or for damages through the other societies, they can be so dealt with without question or qualification from these benches. There then comes the case of the remaining two millions, and, quite apart from the mere question of relative rights, I think that when the Chancellor of the Exchequer comes to consider the particular form in which he is going to give shape to the views expressed from these benches, he-might have regard to two considerations.
The first consideration is that where you have the approved society consisting of an employers-workmen society such as has been instanced by the hon. Member for Derby—a society consisting of a railway 1213 company on the one side, and the workmen of that railway company on the other—I do not think that such a society under any circumstances can be a right society to exercise discretitionary power as to whether the workman should bring an action against his employer. It is notorious—and the Liberal party recognised it in the great fight on the Employers' Liability Bill in 1892—that such societies as those are largely dominated by the employers' point of view. To say that such a society dominated by the employers' point of view is to be permitted to exercise a discretionary power—an hon. Member near me asks, "Who has suggested that?" As the Clause now stands, I take it that any approved society would be enabled to exercise this right and power, and, as I understand it, not only friendly societies controlled by workmen and trades unions, but also joint employers and workmen's societies, such as the North-Western Sick Fund, would be an approved society which could exercise such power.
On grounds of morality it is wrong to give to a society consisting of an interested party, as well as a disinterested party, the power of saying that such a society shall decide Yea or Nay whether proceedings shall be taken against one half of the society, namely, the employers, And I do say that in coming to deal with the requisite word, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will at once shut out societies of that kind, which will go a long way to meet the very legitimate point of view expressed by the trades unions. I am not certain that, inasmuch as the Bill has already said in effect, that this insurance scheme shall not trespass upon the domains of the insurance societies dealing in life insurance, there is something of a precedent for the Chancellor of the Exchequer considering whether it might not be regarded as a beneficial function of a trade union to decide where men are members of a trades union to be appointed practically as the arbiters, as to whether proceedings ought or ought not to be taken. I do hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will insist upon the carrying of this proviso, as I regard it of imperative importance in the interests not only of the Bill but of the trades unions themselves.
§ Mr. JAMES THOMASIn the early stages of this Bill it was defended exclusively on the ground that we were satisfied that it would not interfere with our trade union activity. This particular sub-section does very largely interfere with that activity, but let me point out to the Chan- 1214 cellor of the Exchequer the difficulty that we on these benches and the House generally are in in trying to appreciate the real difference between a trade union and a friendly society. We are not justified however, in saying for the purpose of this Bill that the friendly society shall be on precisely the same terms as the trade-union.
On the face of it it would appear that that was a legitimate demand, on the face of it it would appear that no one ought in fairness to argue any preference for the trade union as against the friendly society. Let me try for a moment to point out the difficulty of the situation. My own organisation has 90,000 members. Less than 5,000 are sick fund members. Under the provisions of this Clause we as an organisation would only be empowered to deal with compensation for less than 5,000 of our members, for the very simple reason that the other 85,000 members might make another society, their approved society. But the strongest argument is this: That a trade union in the past has been limited to industrial activity, that friendly societies have been limited to sick funds, and it is because in Clause 11 we have, unfortunately I think, taken upon ourselves to interfere with the workmen's compensation, that this Clause is necessary. Therefore, we on these benches are opposed to the proposal entirely on the ground that it is not equitable, that it is not just, and that it will lead to overlapping and friction, and certainly will limit trade union activity.
§ Mr. CLYNESAs I understand the Chancellor of the Exchequer he has asserted to the Committee that this Sub-section (e) is designed to give to the friendly societies a right which the trade union now enjoys. I would like him to inform us whether there is in any law anything conferring the right on trade unions to take action in any case of this kind against the will of its members. It may be that it has grown up and has become the practice for a trade union to act on behalf of the general body of its members, and in the interests in the first instance of an individual. But I assert that there is no instance whatever of any case where a workman has been unwilling to have proceedings taken on his behalf, where he has, in the words of this Clause, refused to take proceedings, and then the union has been empowered by law to take his case into court and to have proceedings taken in his name. If the 1215 Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes the friendly societies to be equal with the trade unions why not let them by process of growth or practice acquire the right which the trade unions have so far exercised?
Why would an insured person refuse to take proceedings in the case of an injury? Obviously for the reason that it would pay him better not to have compensation, but to have benefits under this Act. Proceedings under the compensation law are costly. I will suggest that the proceedings that will take place all over the country from time to time will be a very harmful advertisement for the present Chancellor of the Exchequer in connection with this feature of his Bill. The Sub-section itself bears its part of the general taint of iniquity that pervades the whole Clause. But it is not merely iniquitous; it is absurd. It puts two laws into competition; it does not present them as alternatives. It puts the law of the Insurance Act, as I will term
§ it, into competition with the Workmen's Compensation Act. That, to my mind, is an absurd position. It sets up also a new principle—the principle of permitting a second party, an approved society, to take an action which the individual himself does not desire to take. The whole of the parts of this Clause are an injury to the injured workers of this country. This particular part of the Clause is, to my mind, about the worst of the whole of those parts, and I trust that the hon. Gentleman who has moved the deletion of this Sub-section (e) will press the matter to a Division, as it does not appear to my mind that any kind of excuse has been offered by any of the suggestions so far made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, down to the word 'concerned' ['committee concerned'], stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 101; Noes, 44.
1217| Division No. 291.] | AYES. | [3.10 a.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Glanville, H. J. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Greig, Col. J. W. | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Armitage, R. | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Ogden, Fred |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Gulland, John W. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) |
| Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Hackett, John | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Barton, William | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Pollard, Sir George H. |
| Benn, W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Bentham, G. J | Haworth, Sir Arthur A. | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Hay ward, Evan | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Henry, Sir Charles S. | Reddy, Michael |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Higham, John Sharp | Roberts, Charles H, (Lincoln) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Hughes, Spencer Leigh | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) |
| Clough, William | Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan) | Robinson, Sidney |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Illingworth, Percy H. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | John, Edward Thomas | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Seely, Colonel Rt. Hon. J. E. B. |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Sheehy, David |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Keating, Matthew | Shortt, Edward |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | King, Joseph (Somerset, North) | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Dawes, J. A. | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th) | Tennant, Harold John |
| Delany, William | Levy, Sir Maurice | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Doris, William | Lewis, John Herbert | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Duffy, William J. | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Low, Sir F. (Norwich) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Maclean, Donald | Webb, H. |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Ferens, Thomas Robinson | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Ffrench, Peter | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | M'Laren, H. D (Leicester) | |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Meagher, Michael | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. William Jones and Mr. Geoffrey Howard. |
| Furness, Stephen | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | |
| Gelder, Sir W. A. | Nolan, Joseph | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, William | Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Goldsmith, Frank |
| Balcarres, Lord | Cave, George | Goldstone, Frank |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W. | Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Clynes, John R. | Hancock, J. G. |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Doughty, Sir George | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Brace, William | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Hohler, G. F. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Gill, A. H. | Holt, Richard Durning |
| Jowett, Frederick William | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Lansbury, George | Sherwell, Arthur James | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | |
| Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | Thomas, J. H. (Derby) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Joynson-Hicks and Mr. Harold Smith. |
| Parker, James Halifax | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) | |
| Pointer, Joseph | Wardle, George J. |
§ Mr. BOOTHI beg to move in paragraph (e) after the word "concerned" [" it shall be lawful for the society or committee concerned"] to insert the words "with the consent of the Insurance Commissioners."
My object is to prevent any unnecessary litigation. If the consent of the Commissioners has to be obtained there will not be a large number of test cases coming on at the same time. The Insurance Commissioners will be sympathetic and will be able to profit by experience they have received from other districts.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThis refers not merely to friendly societies, but to trade unions as well. It means that you would have to seek the consent of the Insurance Commissioners before any action could be brought. I think that would be casting a great responsibility on the Insurance Commission. It would involve enormous labour before they went into the merits of each case. I think it would be interfering with their other work too much. It would be better to leave it to the trade union or friendly societies as the case may be.
§ Mr. BOOTHI should be very sorry if the trade unions were hampered, and I do not mean the friendly societies to be hampered. Under the circumstances, I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI beg to move in paragraph (e), after the word "person" I" any compensation or damages recovered shall be held by the society or committee as trustee for the insured person"] to insert the words, "deducting the expense of such proceedings."
The point is that where a society takes action because one of its members will not do so, they have to hold the money they recover as a trustee for that person. Surely they ought to be allowed to deduct the expense of such proceedings. The fact of their being penalised by the expense would make them unwilling to act. I think it is a simple and reasonable Amendment.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEThis is exactly the opposite of what we have been pressed to do. What we have been asked to do is to say that the society should have to bear the whole of the expense if they go wrong. What the hon. Gentleman wants to do is to put the expense of the proceedings upon the person in whose name the action is taken.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPENo, no. I only want to give them their costs.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEWhere money is recovered the costs are recovered from the other side.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEI do not think that necessarily would be so in all cases. It is only where they have taken action on behalf of a person that it should be made quite clear that they should not be put to any expense. I think it is only fair they should deduct any expense over and above the costs. I do not think it could do any harm, anyhow.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEIt is absolutely unnecessary. If the society loses by this Amendment it will have to bear the expense. If it succeeds the expenses will come from the other side.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPEAll the expenses? Friendly societies who approach me on this matter attach great importance to it.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACSYou do in the county court.
§ Mr. CAVEThese may be High Court proceedings, and the difference between party and party costs and solicitor and client costs may be considerable. The net money ought to be held in trust by the society for the insured person.
§ Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 27; Noes, 122.
1219| Division No. 292.] | AYES. | [3.22 a.m. |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Forster, Henry William | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy | Talbot, Lord E. |
| Barnston, H. | Home, Win. E. (Surrey, Guildford) | Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.) |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Joynson-Hicks, William | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Cave, George | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. James Hope and Sir George Doughty. |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. (M'tgom'y B'ghs.) | |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Smith, Harold (Warrington) | |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Glanville, H. J. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) |
| Adamson, William | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Goldstone, Frank | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) | Greig, Colonel J. W. | Ogden, Fred |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Armitage, R. | Gulland, John William | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Hackett, J. | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Barry, Redmond John | Hancock, J. G. | Pointer, Joseph |
| Barton, W. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Pollard, Sir George H. |
| Benn, W. T. H'mts., St. George) | Handle, J. Keir | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Bentham, G. J. | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Raffan, Peter Wilson |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Haworth, Sir Arthur A. | Reddy, M. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hayward, Evan | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Brace, William | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Henry, Sir Charles Solomon | Robinson, Sidney |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Higham, John Sharp | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Holt, Richard Durning | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) |
| Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Hughes, S. L. | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Clough, William | Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan) | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. |
| Clynes, John R. | Illingworth, Percy H. | Sheehy, David |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | John, Edward Thomas | Shortt, Edward |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Crumley, Patrick | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Jowett, F. W. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Keating M. Kelly Edward | Tennant, Harold John |
| Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | King, J. (Somerset, N.) | Thomas, J. H. (Derby) |
| Dawes, J. A. | Lansbury, George | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Delany, William | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rl'nd, Cockerm'th) | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Doris, William | Levy, Sir Maurice | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Duffy, William J. | Lewis, John Herbert | Ward W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Low, Sir F. (Norwich) | Wardle, George J. |
| Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Macdonald, Ramsay (Leicester) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Maclean, Donald | Webb, H. |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T.J. | white, Sir Luke (York, E.R.) |
| Ferens, Thomas Robinson | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Ffrench, Peter | M'Laren, H. D. (Leics.) | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Meagher, Michael | Williams, P. (Middlesbrough) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Mond, Sir Alfred M. | |
| Furness, Stephen | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. William Jones and Mr. Geoffrey Howard. |
| George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Nolan, Joseph | |
| Gill, A. H. | Norman, Sir Henry |
§ Sir E. CORNWALLmoved, at the end of paragraph (e) to insert the words, "In the event of the society or committee concerned taking proceedings as aforesaid, and failing in the proceedings, they shall be responsible for the costs of the proceedings as if they were claiming on their own account."
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ Mr. JAMES THOMASI beg to move the rejection of the Clause.
Whatever argument there may have been for the postponement of this Clause, there are certainly strong arguments at 1220 this stage for the absolute rejection of the Clause. I am perfectly satisfied that when it is discovered that the Insurance Bill deprives the workman of benefits which he at present enjoys under the Compensation Act, nothing will have rendered this scheme so unpopular as to-night's proceedings. Considerable argument has been adduced from all sides of the House to show that, so far as this particular Clause is concerned, the primary object is to prevent what is termed malingering. I am not going to labour that point, but I am going to try and show one typical case among thousands of cases of what may be termed real injustice under this Bill. Take a railway man in receipt of £l per week who meets with an accident and 1221 loses his hand. Under the provisions of the Compensation Act he is entitled to 10s. a week compensation. No one can suggest that he receives that compensation for his sickness. No one suggests that that 10s. compensation is paid him because of his illness. It is paid him in consequence of his incapacity and his inability to go into the labour market in future on precisely the same terms as he did prior to the accident. Let us assume that for nine months that man is in receipt of 10s. a week compensation, during the whole of that period he is deprived of his sick pay.
Let it be remembered that the man with the £l a week is unable to make any other provision, and therefore we have to assume that during the whole period of that nine months 10s. is the sum coming into that man's house weekly. At the end of that period the employer agrees to commute the allowance of 10s. a week. It is commuted not on the basis of the full compensation, but the man is further penalised because the amount he has received is taken into consideration. Here is a man who loses his arm or leg having to face the world handicapped, as he will be under those circumstances, deprived throughout the whole of the period he receives compensation from the benefits that would help to mitigate his loss. This, I submit, is a very serious position, and it is one which I am perfectly satisfied the workers will not tolerate. So far as we are concerned in defending this Bill, first on the ground that it is of material advantage not only to friendly societies but to trades unions as well, we can no longer say that, in face of the passing of this Clause 11. No one who has defended the Bill has dared say on the platform that he anticipated this Clause standing part of the Bill. I have delivered scores of speeches on this Bill, and without a solitary exception I have always pointed out that in my opinion this Clause would never stand part of the Bill, but that the general sense of the House would be such as to render it impossible in the future for the workman to be deprived of compensation.
I come to the second aspect of the question, which is that trade unions are absolutely prevented in the future from doing what they have done in the past. I will give a typical illustration. I have figures which will, I think, clearly demonstrate it. I have taken out from our own record the experiences of the last ten years. I will give the figures in bulk. During the past ten years my own organisation has 1222 obtained from employers £23,333 in weekly allowances. In the same period for non-fatal accidents they have obtained £70,000, and dealt with 6,000 cases. Out of the whole of these 6,000 cases there are less than fifty members on the sick fund of our society, and the remarkable thing is that under the decision we have arrived at with regard to this Clause the whole of the remainder of those members might have been members of another approved society for sick benefit, and we as an organisation would have been limited absolutely to the members of the sick fund. It is very questionable under the proposals of this Bill whether trades unions will all become approved societies.
Then there is the further peculiar point as far as railway companies are concerned. The majority of railway companies have got their sick fund and friendly societies, many of which are a condition of employment, and even when they are not the pressure of the officials is such that it will render it really difficult for the men to make any other but that society approved. Therefore, having regard to all these circumstances—having regard to the fact that this Bill has been defended as far as the trade unionists are concerned because it would not interefere with trade union activity—it does, after all, interfere with that activity by the passing of this Clause. The second is, that it does give a preference really to societies, and, above all, it brings into the field of trade union activity the real protection of labour, friendly societies that hitherto have been limited to one aspect of work. For those reasons I move the rejection of the Clause. If the Motion is not carried I am perfectly certain the opposition to this Bill will be stronger in the future than it has been in the past; in fact I am afraid it will destroy the principal intention, and objects of the Government in this direction.
§ Mr. LANSBURYI wish to support the rejection of this Clause. I do so for a good many reasons. First of all I want to say a word or two on what I believe is the main object of the Clause, as I have gathered from the discussion, and that is that you are not to pay a man sick pay when he gets compensation, because people are afraid that he might malinger. Well, I have sat here through the whole of these discussions, and if there is one thing that has come out more than another it is that most Members of the House are afraid to trust the workman with too much money. When you have cut off one of his arms, or 1223 smashed one of his legs, or fractured one side of his skull, or carved him up in all kinds of shapes, then you think that if he gets half his money, another 10s. a week, he might waste it in riotous living. You think that when you have paid the wretched compensation for his being maimed in the mine, torn to pieces in the factory, and generally disfigured for life, you are entitled to plunder him of this 10s. a week. That is the real crux of the whole of this Clause. We are all well-fed men, none of us ever goes without a meal; there is not one of us but what has good holidays each year. A holiday to you is four or five months, and of sailing trips round the world. But the working man's holiday—
§ The CHAIRMANWill the hon. Member please confine himself to the subject, and not repeat himself so much?
§ Mr. LANSBURYWell, I was interrupted, and I wanted to emphasise the point that hon. Members appear to me to be in this position, that as they are such authorities on malingering themselves we have had all these imputations during the last few days of the iniquities of malingering. As a rule the person who is an authority on that kind of thing is the person who indulges in it himself. I am bound to say from my knowledge of the middle and upper classes that they are adepts at the game of malingering. If a man feels a little run down his doctor orders him off to the seaside, or tells him he must have a voyage, or that he must rest; and Cabinet Ministers and their officials when they get a little done up and have a couple of months away on full pay, do not seem to meet with any harm. What is sauce for the goose on the Treasury Bench—I might have put it the other way round and said that what was sauce for the geese on the Treasury Bench ought certainly to be sauce for the unhappy people whose case we are advocating. None of us here earns anything; somebody has to earn it for us all the time.
But what I am really trying to get into the minds of the Committee is that they have no right to stand up one after the other and tell the working man that he is a malingerer if he gets something approaching his earning money when he is sick. It is an insult to the working classes for them to be discussed and inquested as they have been on this sub- 1224 ject. There is not one of us in this House but what knows that a workman needs more money when he is sick than when, he is well; and when he has met with an accident his wife and children and himself need more money in the home. I am not going to be a party—probably I disagree with some of my own friends on this matter—in any sort of way to countenance the idea that a family needs less money when there is sickness or accident in the house. To bring in a National Insurance Bill and stick in the centre or almost at the beginning of it clauses like this is insulting to the working classes. Many workmen I know go back to work a jolly sight earlier than any of them ought to go. I am ashamed that men in this House should constantly be standing up preaching about malingering when they do not practice the kind of doctrine that they preach. When I hear that they do, and see that they do, then I shall believe in their anxiety to preserve people from wanting to mump.
The other point which I want to make is this: The Government have seen fit to introduce an entirely new principle into this Bill with regard to compensation, and I say without any hesitation that I believe that is in for the express purpose of softening the 3d. a week that the employer has to pay. It seems to me that all the big vested interests have been stroked down in one way or the other, and this is an indirect way of stroking down the big employer by providing that payments for accidents shall be part and parcel of the National Insurance scheme. I am against that altogether. So far as I understand, and I know something about it, the Workmen's Compensation Act is working fairly well in the case of most people who meet with accidents. I want to say that I do not think you can ever really compensate a man or woman after losing an arm or leg. A man showed me his hands the other day, ruined in a coal mine. Anyone would, know that no money could ever compensate for the manner in which that man's hands had been mangled. What I feel is that at present we are giving some sort of money compensation to people, which is little enough, in all conscience. I contend that compensation and the right to compensation ought not to have been introduced into this Bill in any shape or form. It has raised all these difficulties as between the trade union and the friendly society, and the new societies 1225 all over the country which the hon. Member for Pontefract threatened us with.
§ Mr. LANSBURYWell, we all misunderstood you. You are like myself—a most misunderstood person. The point I want to urge is that if there were no other reason for the rejection of the Clause it should be rejected for the reasons I mentioned at the beginning. Another reason why it should not be passed to-night is the present condition of the House. Members have been trying in all kinds of attitudes to get the sleep the Chancellor of the Exchequer has robbed us of.
§ The CHAIRMANIf the hon. Member is speaking to the question of whether the Clause should stand part, he should confine himself to the merits of the Clause.
§ Mr. LANSBURYWith very great respect I am wanting to give reasons why we are moving the rejection of the Clause. It is because I think the House at four o'clock in the morning is not in a fit condition to give a proper decision in the matter as to whether it should stand part or not. They are worn out. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no.] It is all very well for those Members who have been getting part of their night's rest in the corridors and in the smoking rooms. That is my opinion.
§ The CHAIRMANThat does not really arise on the merits of the Clause, which is the only question before the House.
§ Mr. LANSBURYIf you will allow me to say so I do not think there are any merits except extremely bad merits. For that reason I think it ought to be rejected. At any rate, I think it is disgraceful that at this hour so important a provision as this should be carried through and passed. It will do tremendous harm to trade unions, but what is of more importance is that it is going to rob the poor people of that which the Bill is compelling them to pay for and for which, when the time comes, you will not allow funds to foot the bill. I hope this National Insurance Scheme will be spurned and rejected by every one of them.
§ Mr. EDGAR JONESAccording to the hon. Member for Derby the Bill is now not worth anything in money. I think that is a very serious position because if the 1226 Labour party, in its mass is going to adopt that attitude from now on, it is very essential that the supporters of the Bill should understand the position to which we have been brought. I would appeal to the Labour Members to reconsider that attitude. I really think they would be most misguided to say that this Bill is not worth having even with the Clause as it stands. I most earnestly appeal to them to think for themselves and not to-night go into the Lobby for the wholesale rejection of this Clause. Such an action would be interpreted outside as a vote on the part of the Labour party for the rejection of a very essential element in the Bill. Surely the hon. Member for Derby is labouring under a misapprehension. I can quite understand his objection if his view is correct. I think, however, that he is labouring under a misapprehension.
It has been difficult to follow the manuscript Amendment. My view is that whenever a trade union cares in the future, as in the past, to sue in court, it will be able to do so with the same liberty as in the past. I do not think there has been anything negativing in any shape or form the capacity of trade unions. Surely the hon. Member for Derby must agree that when you look at the poor clerk, domestic servant, and rural labourer, when you look at the great proportion of that fourteen millions who are being drawn into this Bill, who have had absolutely no protection throughout these years up till now, coming to court without any compensation or keeping out of court after a miserable bargain, surely in putting at their disposal an organisation like the friendly society and insuring to them compensation, that is something the Labour party is not going to reject scornfully and without very serious consideration. I appreciate their difficulty and the danger they apprehend with regard to the present two million members of the trade unions. I think when we have got the final form of this Clause it will be possible to meet that. If the trade. union has taken action in the court of law the friendly society need not take it afterwards. I do not think a friendly society would be so foolish. If a trade union has spent money on one compensation case, the friendly society is not going to waste its money in repeating the process over again.
So much for that point. The real point I wanted to put in my appeal to hon. Members was on the wider question with regard to the financial problem, which I under- 1227 stand they view seriously. I for one would say unhesitatingly that I have to agree on the merits of the question as to the tremendous hardship of refusing sick pay to those people who also receive compensation pay. Representing one of the Constituencies of the country which has a sad toll of accidents, probably more than any other constituency, I say for my constituents that it is going to be as great a loss for them as for any other part of the country. It is going to be exceedingly unpopular, and I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer realises this. We have only three alternatives. First, to increase the State contribution; secondly, to increase the contributions of members or employers; and thirdly, to rearrange the benefits. To-night I have not heard any proposal to increase the subscriptions of members or the contributions of employers. I have not heard anybody contend that it would be better to rearrange the benefits. I do not think it would be better to do so. I do not know that there is a single benefit in the list given in the Bill that we can afford to give up.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is talking at large about the Bill and not about this Clause. He must confine his remarks to the Clause.
§ Mr. EDGAR JONESI was endeavour to deal with the first Section of the Clause, namely, the question of refusing to give sick benefit to people who are receiving compensation, and I was pointing out the three alternatives. I was on the point of saying that if you cannot rearrange the benefits you come to the third alternative, namely, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should increase the contribution from the State. The position is this. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer says he cannot or will not do it, what we can insist upon is to vote the Chancellor of the Exchequer down and defeat him. That means the destruction of the Bill and goodness only knows what other consequences. If the Labour Members are not prepared to take that responsibility there is no other way out of the matter but for us to accept this, unpopular as it is, and however much we should like to get this double money. We have nothing else to do. We cannot possibly keep on moving Amendment after Amendment. We have either to kill the Bill now and have done with it, and get our summer holidays, or set about taking it and dealing with the matter under the scheme the Chancellor of the Exchequer 1228 has been able to give us. I therefore appeal to the Labour Members to see if they cannot reconsider their position, and let this Clause go through.
§ Mr. ALBERT SMITHI make no apology for getting up at this early hour to give my full opposition to this Clause. At the same time I do it with the utmost regret, as I realise to the full the amount of work and enthusiasm the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put into this matter. Of all Clauses in the Bill in regard to which he has been most misguided, this is the worst. If I had the same experience of the ghastly accidents to which the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Edgar Jones) alluded and of which other Members have had experience I could not hold up my hand or raise my voice to pass a Clause against those people who are to be deprived of compensation at the expense of the benefits they are to receive. Nobody connected with the working of the Workmen's Compensation Act in a trade union ever thought for a second it was really true that the finance of the Insurance Bill was to be met by penalising those who are entitled to workmen's compensation. Apart from that the insurance of people is not equal. On the one hand, you have members who are well enough off to be members of two friendly societies, they can have their benefits increased by the aid of the State and the whole of the money they contribute, while a poor man on the other hand injured at work and receiving compensation cannot expect to receive one farthing more than his compensation. There is no equality about it. The expense is too much for employers or for trade union officials. The whole working of the Workmen's Compensation Act has been very difficult. Cases have had had to be fought from one court to another by societies and trade unions and employers. Test cases have been arranged to decide certain points until there is absolute confidence in each other between employers and trade unions as to cases of compensation for injured people. This Bill is going to rob them of a lot of confidence in that arrangement, and the Clause is going to be a far-reaching evil.
The hon. Member for Merthyr asked the Labour party to reconsider their decision, but it is practically impossible to give way on the matter. I can answer for over 200,000 cotton operatives in Lancashire that when they see in the papers that because they receive compensation they are to be deprived of insurance benefits, any 1229 sympathy they might have had for the Insurance Bill will entirely vanish. Whether we are serious on the floor of the House this morning or not, these people in the cotton mills of Lancashire, will be serious when we come to meet them on this matter. I only wish to say one word more with regard to the much-discussed word "malingering." I do not like what the hon. Member above the Gangway who is in the medical profession said about it. I do not dispute that there may be malingering, but I am not going to punish the whole of these people for it any more than I would punish the whole medical profession for the action of one doctor who failed to attend to his duties. It has been said that there are 14,000,000 people outside the trade unions.
I do not want it to be understood in this House that we are standing in the way of these people having methods of obtaining their compensation, if we can be of any assistance in the way trade unions have been of assistance to thousands outside trade unions. It is because of the depriving of those who are entitled to receive compensation from that compensation, and the friction that is going to be set up between the societies and the trade unions unless we know definitely where we stand, that we object to this provision. It is all very well for some hon. Members to cry "Divide!" but I have heard twenty-three speeches all from one side of the House on the question whether the pay of an army captain should be increased, and surely I am entitled to plead for industrial workers who have been deprived of their insurance benefit simply because they have been injured, perhaps permanently, inside a cotton mill or a coal mine.
As regards the question of malingering, no man is more detested by the fellow-members of his trade union than the man who tries to receive money to which he is not entitled. We know there is a difficulty of detection, but there is no class of persons in this country more, desirous of detecting malingering, which not only robs the insurance companies of their money, but perhaps their own societies, than trade unionists. There are no people who get more opprobrium than do malingerers from their fellow-workers. You can always get the assistance of a member of a trade union in detecting those men. For these reasons I had hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have given us more time to discuss the Government's manuscript Amendments. I am sure I do not understand them 1230 thoroughly. There is an uneasy feeling about this matter, and knowing as we do the dissatisfaction which this Clause is going to produce in the working-class industry, we feel that we should be misusing the very powers we were sent here to exercise were we not to raise our voice against such a Clause as this.
Mr. POINTERAlthough I have been on these premises for close upon nineteen hours, I cannot refrain from saying a word in regard to this Clause. I want to say, with all moderation, that I think this Clause is a serious blot upon this Bill, and it appears to be introducing a principle that is altogether foreign to the general tenour of the Clauses of the Bill. I do want to say, without making any threat, that if the Government persist in pushing this Clause forward they are going to make it very difficult, so far as we are concerned, to defend the Bill. It is no exaggeration to say that, whatever attitude we may or may not take up to-night, the members of the trade unions up and down the country and the people generally who are supporting the principle of this Bill will be up in arms when once they know that this is a settled feature of the Bill.
I have addressed quite a considerable number of meetings in regard to this Bill, and I have always done my best to defend it. I have said that the Bill had serious flaws and faults, but that, generally speaking, the principle of the Bill was sound, and that in its progress through Committee it would be so altered as to make it a measure that we could accept. I have had this point put to me specifically, not once or twice, but on every single occasion when I have addressed a meeting on the Bill—and I have addressed trades unions, friendly societies, and labour parties of one description and another—"What do you think of Clause 11? What do you think of a man who is going to have his compensation interfered with because of the operation of this particular Clause?" And I have said on each and every occasion that this provision, seemed to me so unjust that I did not believe it would pass the House of Commons. "If that," I said, "is the only objection you have against the Bill I think you can rest assured that objection will be removed." It appears I was mistaken. It appears the Government have not taken the same line of thought that I have, and that they attach a great amount of importance—as a matter of fact I do but in the 1231 opposite direction—to this particular provision. After all, what evil is this provision meant to meet? Simply an exaggerated fear of malingering. Some one says "No," but it is idle to say "no" when so many of you have told us that you want to prevent malingering, and as one of my hon. Friends remarked, if there is any fear of malingering, there is no earthly use of the Clause at all. I want to say a word or two with regard to malingering.
We who have been in the workshops for many years know something about men by whose side we have worked. I worked at a shop with 150 members, and there was only one man out of them we even suspected of malingering, and I may say, as bearing out what the hon. Member for Clitheroe has said about the resentment that is meted out to a man who does malinger, that we promptly altered the rules of the fund in order to get a man out, and we got him out, so strong is the feeling of his fellow-workers against a man who presumes to linger on a sick fund of this kind. I want to say a word or two with regard to the practical effect of this. I have on my thumb a very serious scar, which I received before the Compensation Act became law, and, consequently, I had not the benefit of the Act, but at that time I was on a friendly society, drawing 15s. a week. Supposing the Compensation Act had also been in operation, I should then have been drawing 35s. a week. Assuming I was a married man and had a family, is anyone here going to suggest that I was going to malinger on 35s. a week, when I could draw £2 by working? I shall be told that there are men who receive very low wages, and that with the benefits under the Bill, plus their compensation, they would have as much, and probably in some few cases more, money coming in than when they are working. I do not think it is fair or just or equitable that you should penalise the great mass of people who will be penalised by this Bill just to prevent a few about whom you have fears, and who may have some incentive to malingering, from doing so.
Consequently, as far as I am concerned, I do regard most seriously this Clause as a very great blot upon the Bill. I want to answer a remark that was made by the senior Member for Merthyr. I rather resent—perhaps that is not the right word—I certainly do not like the way in which he appealed to sentiment in regard to this 1232 Clause, which is, after all, a strictly business proposal and a strictly practical one. He appeals to us to consider the agricultural labourer, the domestic servant and the host of other people who are for the first time, so he says, being brought into the benefits of such a scheme as this. But surely that is no reason for placing disadvantages upon other people in order that these might get a benefit. If there is to be doubt anywhere, let the doubt be in favour of the bulk of the workmen who will come within the ambit of this particular Bill. Then the hon. Member rather chided us with the fact that we had not shown where the money was to come from to provide for this change. That has nothing to do with us. What we have to decide first is whether the principle is right or wrong; it is for the Government to provide the sinews of war from their own resources.
There is not a man upon these benches who, if he was in the Chancellor of the Exchequer's place, but would get the money and get it quite easily. The Chancellor knows quite well that if the necessity for money arises he can find it. He admitted the point when he said that if necessary he was prepared to recommit the Resolution in order that that might be done. Even at this late hour I appeal to the Government to realise what this part of the Bill means—that however popular or unpopular this Bill may have been up to now it will certainly be very unpopular if this particular provision is insisted upon. A great outcry has already been made. It is a point that has been pressed home at meeting after meeting. If it is settled that in the event of this Bill becoming law working men are to have only the difference between the amount of compensation they are entitled to and the 10s. in the Bill, which in many cases would be-something like 2s. 6d. or 3s. a week, then it will be resented most keenly. I hope the Government will not make the mistake of thinking that we are opposing this out of any frivolity, but because we recognise what it means and how it would be viewed by the people with whom we come in contact from day to day.
§ Mr. McKENNAI hope my hon. Friends, to whom I have listened with the greatest-interest, will not feel that I am making an unfair appeal if I ask them to allow us now to take a vote on the Clause. The objections to the Clause were raised more fully upon the original Amendment to leave out Sub-section (a), and nothing has 1233 been added since then, or could be added. Everybody in the House recognises the sincerity and the conviction with which hon. Gentlemen have spoken against this Clause, and that they do feel a very real grievance with regard to the Clause. But on the other hand, the Government have put forward very strongly their reasons for adhering to the Bill in its present form. The reason put forward has been purely and simply a financial reason. We have nothing further to add. As the Bill stands, there is a contribution of 4d. from the workman, 3d. from the employer, and the equivalent of 2d. from the State. The rejection of this Clause will not find another halfpenny. If hon. Gentlemen insist on rejecting this Clause and succeed the inevitable consequence will be to reduce the sick benefit from 10s. to 9s. That follows inevitably from the previous decision of the Committee.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDI can assure the Committee that the reason why we have taken the action that we have taken is that we desire to save this Bill. Let there be no mistake about that. We consider that this Clause, with one or two other things, especially one thing that happened to-day before we came to the Clause, has very nearly brought us to the point when we will have to consider whether we should continue to support the Bill or not. That point has not been reached. Let there be no mistake about that either. But there is not the least doubt about this, that if these points that we are raising, which to us are fundamental, are to be rejected one after another, then that point will very soon be reached. We regard Clause 11 as being essentially bad. So strong is the objection of the trade unionists to the Clause that it is useless for us to go and ask them to support with anything like enthusiasm a Bill which contains such a provision. But that is not the point.
I think we have already shown the Chancellor of the Exchequer that we are prepared to face the music both here and outside, but we are conscientiously and firmly opposed to Clause 11. We think that its intention is wrong. We think it is a great mistake. We do not believe that when a man or woman has suffered an accident his or her sickness benefit ought to be withdrawn. That is our first objection. Our second objection is that if the Government insist upon withholding this sickness benefit it 1234 is then bound to take certain consequential actions, which we consider to be a grave menace to trade unionism. That consequential action is outlined in the latter part of this Clause. If I agreed with the beginning of the Clause I should also be bound to agree with the latter part of the Clause. The whole Clause is a complete unity, logically and consistently thought out and very well devised. To that we have no objection. But fundamentally we object to it. We object to its intention and its consequences. With profound regret, but with a very clear idea of what we are doing we are determined to make the most emphatic protest against the inclusion of Clause 11 in this Bill.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI think after the speech of my hon. Friend something requires to be said by the Government. Mr. right hon. Friend (Mr. McKenna) has already put the case, and I do not know that I need elaborate it very much. I think I may, at this hour, just repeat not merely why we introduce this into the Bill, but why we attach very great importance to it, and why we have departed from the practice which so many of the trade unions prefer. We have done-it for this reason. We were advised—and further inquiry I have made proves that the advice is sound—that the effect of this double insurance was undoubtedly injurious to the interests of friendly societies. I do not think any one who will look at the figures can possibly doubt that. We were advised that the increase in the charge of friendly societies during the last few years is very largely attributable to the fact that workmen insured in friendly societies were receiving a certain amount of money from their societies in addition to the compensation which they received elsewhere, so that either they were in a good position, and, in some cases, in a better position. We were advised by those whose advice we were bound to give the greatest heed to that the effect of this would be very serious upon the whole finance of the Bill. My right hon. Friend has put this point to the Committee. We can only see our way to raising a certain sum of money. I know exactly what the Exchequer can spare. We cannot possibly put on an extra ½d. or 1d.
I do not think we can put anything further upon the employer. That means, therefore, that we are limited in our finance. The whole point is what is the best use we can make of our finance. If our money were unlimited there would be 1235 a good deal to be said for the point, but that is not the case. My hon. Friend says we are constantly rejecting proposals that come from him and his friends. That is really not so. I have accepted a good many Amendments coming from them, including a very important one that came from the Member for Merthyr, one which came from the hon. Member for Blackburn and others, all of them involving, not merely additional charges upon the fund, but additional charges upon the State to such an extent that, I think, it will be necessary even to extend the Financial Resolution in order to meet them. When I have opposed Amendments of this kind I have done it because I have other things in mind. If the money is given for this purpose it will not be there for another purpose. My hon. Friend and those associated with him have really got to elect whether they would spend the money in giving double benefits to those who are receiving compensation, or whether they would not prefer to apply it in strengthening other parts of the Bill which are weak at the present moment. I have already indicated some of these. Sanatoria benefits for the women and children; the important condition of women under Clause 34; those who are already insured, and whose benefits would be suspended—I will have a proposal there which will involve a considerable burden. There are several matters of that kind which more than absorb all that we could possibly provide. If I gave way on this there would really be no money left. The State cannot undertake the burden.
I really could not undertake the responsibility of providing, not for the benefit of the women and children, but purely in order that workmen should get double benefits. I do not think it would be advisable. There is another point I would like to put to my hon. Friends below the Gangway. If they want this they are in a position to get it. It involves simply a small increase upon their own society—either trade union or friendly society. We take a considerable burden off both the trade union and the friendly society. They can, without even paying as much as they are paying now—I say deliberately without paying anything like they are paying now—insure and put themselves in exactly the same position they are in at present, and, indeed, be better. But what I have to consider is whether the 3d. of the employer or the 5d. which the employer finds in certain cases and the 1236 2d. of the State shall be utilised for this purpose, or whether it will be utilised for some other purpose. There is nothing to prevent trade unions and friendly societies from insuring and putting their members in exactly the position they are in now without incurring the expense which they are now incurring by way of a levy on their members. They are doing it now by voluntary effort and they can still do it.
§ Mr. S. WALSHThe right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. A great many trade unions do not pay sick benefit at all, but are simply industrial organisations, and therefore these societies cannot quite so readily take upon themselves this burden.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEVery well. In that case I do not see where the grievance is. We are not depriving the trade unions of anything they have got at the present moment.
§ Mr. J. PARKERThe Chancellor of the Exchequer keeps telling us that he is not depriving them of anything they have got now. Take the case of an unskilled labourer working for—l per week. He gets his 10s. from a friendly society and would have half his wages under the Compensation Act. Will the Chancellor tell us how he is not depriving that man when he is compelling him to pay 1d. more than he is paying now.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI have not made my proposition clear. For that 10s. he is paying now, according to whether he is in town or in country, 6d. or 6½d. That is the charge. He is charged 4d. under the State scheme for that benefit. He has, therefore, got a balance of 2d., and he need not pay 2d. in order to get this benefit, or anything like it. That is exactly the point. My own computation is that ½d. would do it, so that his actual gain under this scheme is 3½d. before the deficiency is wiped out. He pays 4d. under the State scheme where he formerly paid 6d. All he has got to do in the future is to pay an extra ½d. to the society, making it 4id. in all, and he gets this double benefit and would still be 3½d. a week better off than he was before. That is the case. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I have taken the very case mentioned by my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. JAMES PARKERDoes he get both benefits under the scheme?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEUndoubtedly he gets more benefits.
§ Mr. J. PARKERBoth?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGECertainly, he gets the benefits of the scheme. He gets medical services, maternity benefit, and sanatorium benefit, and if he is over sixteen years of age he gets the benefit of the enormous reserves carried to every trade union and every friendly society. Supposing he wants to insure for the double benefit, all he has to do is to go on with his trade union and pay them ½d. or 1d. a week at the outside, in addition to what he pays the friendly society, so that if he pays 4½d. where he formerly paid 6d. he will get the additional benefits of the scheme, and also the very things hon. Members are asking for.
Mr. POINTERHow will that operate in the case of a man earning £l a week who is not a member of a union or a friendly society?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEHe gets the compensation of 10s. a week for which he has paid nothing. The insurance against accidents is a very small item. For ½d. or 1d. at the outside he can insure against accidents. The 4d. is for the ordinary illnesses to which a man is liable. The hon. Member shakes his head. What does he mean?
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEHe will understand it if it is fairly put to him in intelligible language. The man earning £l a week is not—I will not say such a fool—but at such a pass as not to be able to understand it if it is fairly put to him. I think there are members of trade unions who, if you put it to them, that for 4d. a week they are getting 9d.—and again I emphasise the fact—that there is not a penny of that 9d. which the State touches, because the whole expenses of administration by the State is outside that 9d., and he will get the whole of that 9d. for 4d.—if that is told to the working man, he is quite sensible enough to see that when he is offered 9d. for 4d. he is getting a good bargain. Here is another thing I want to put to my hon. Friends. We are only at the eleventh Clause. They can put it, if they like, that they have wrung concessions out of the Exchequer.
§ Mr. JAMES THOMASThat is a way a man talks when he is beaten.
§ Mr. LLOYD GEORGEI have been beaten sometimes, but I have sometimes beaten off the attack. That is the fortune of war and I am quite ready to take it. 1238 Hon. Members are entitled to say that they have wrung considerable concessions out of an obstinate, stubborn, hard-hearted Treasury. They cannot have it all their own way in this world. Let them be satisfied with what they have got. They are entitled to say this is not a perfect Bill, but then this is not a perfect world. Do let them be fair. It is £15,000,000 of money which is not wrung out of the workmen's pockets, but which goes, every penny of it, into the workmen's pocket. Let them bear that in mind. I think they are right in fighting for organisations which have achieved great things for the working classes. I am not at all surprised that they regard them with reverence. I would not do anything which would impair their position. Because in my heart I believe that the Bill will strengthen their power is one of the reasons why I am in favour of this Bill. In Germany, the trade union movement was a poor, miserable, wretched thing some years ago. Insurance has done more to teach the working classes the value of organisation than any single thing in the whole history of German industrial organisation. I have met several German Labour leaders and Socialist leaders and employers, and they all say the same thing. May I also say another thing. They all state that when the matter was first of all proposed they were all dead against it. They criticised it, even more severely than my hon. Friends have done this Bill and they regarded it with the same suspicion and apprehension. Their imaginations saw disaster and ruin in it. There is not one of them now who would lift a little finger to get it off the statute book. They have put every muscle into a fight to keep it there. You cannot get a Socialist leader in Germany to-day to do anything to get rid of that Bill, and I think they will find that many Socialist leaders in Germany will say that they would rather have our Bill than their own Bill. This Bill marks an enormous advance. If hon. Members reject the Bill it will be a very serious responsibility. I do not think it is one for which the labouring classes would thank them. They are right in fighting for their trade unions. They represent, on the whole, the best stock of the working classes. I would remind them that this Bill benefits the poorer classes and that it will do greater things for them than any Bill introduced for a great many years in this House. It will remove anxiety as to distress, it will heal, it will lift them up, and it will give them a new hope. It will do 1239 more than that because it will give them a new weapon which will enable them to organise, and the most valuable and vital thing is that the "working classes will be organised£15,000,000 of them—for the first time for their own purposes. Hon. Members can reject this Bill with all these boons, but it is a responsibility I am not prepared to share with them.
§ Mr. JOWETTI do not think that any Member of the party to which I belong will have a single word of complaint to offer as to the tone and spirit of the appeal that has been made to these benches by the right hon. Gentleman. At the same time I wish to associate myself with other Members on these benches who have spoken against this Clause. I not only do it as against the principle of the Clause itself, but as against the workings of the details which follow on its fundamental principles. Let me, in the first place, say this regarding the provision, that it will enable a clash of interests for the first time to arise between those who are fighting the battle of injured workers under the Compensation Act. The trade unions do not merely care for their own members, they care also for, and fight the battles of, other workers who are not members of their own unions. In my own town, for instance, the organised representative body to which I belong takes every case, whether the worker belongs to a trade union or not, and fights it under the Compensation Act. I am told that the same thing exists in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax. There again, not only do the organised trades unions fight cases for their own members, but for other workers as well, and it seems to me a most dangerous tampering with present conditions to bring in this new system of allowing approved societies to jeopardise the harmonious working which at present exists. I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer must admit that for the first time we are, under the guise of giving a new boon to the working classes of this country, taking away part of one that already exists.
The organised labour of this country has come to regard the Workmen's Compensation Act as one of the best Acts of Parliament this generation has seen placed upon the Statute Book. They are jealous of any tampering with it. It is tampered with by this Bill. Those who have benefits under that Act have no chance of getting those benefits if this 1240 Clause is passed that they otherwise would have, and, therefore, on behalf of the organised workers of the West Riding of Yorkshire, I, like my Friend who represents organised workers in cotton factories in Lancashire, wish to say that if this Clause is included in this Bill it will cause a tremendous amount of misunderstanding which cannot possibly be removed. It will take the gilt off the gingerbread, so to speak. It would cause alarm amongst the working classes, and make the Bill such that it could not work harmoniously, as it otherwise would. We are constantly asked where the money is to come from. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not raided all the hen-roosts yet. There are others. If in fifteen years the wealthy can increase their wealth to the extent of £415,000,000, surely they can spare some more, and we call upon them to face their responsibilities and to meet the hopes planted in the breasts of so many of the poor of this country by finding the money to enable this Clause to be deleted.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEI think there is one point the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not altogether realise. He, following the lead of my hon. colleague behind me, appealed to the Labour party not to take the responsibility of wrecking this Bill,. but he forgets that the last word does not rest with us. We are here as representatives. I am sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree that in trying to get concessions we have not unduly or in any raucous spirit criticised the Bill either in the House of Commons or outside. Individuals may have done so, but individual Liberals have done the same. I am not sure that the hon. Member who interrupts loves the Bill much himself, or if he does he dissembles his love very successfully.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEWhat I was going to say was that we have endeavoured to-smooth the way amongst the working classes for the passage of this Bill, but there is a large element among us who regard many of these details with distrust—I am not speaking of Socialists, but of trade unionists. All among us bring the: tale that whilst everyone desires some kind of scheme like the present, they are distrustful of many of its details, and when this Clause gets to be understood, that distrust will certainly be deep. I listened with both interest and pleasure to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but to my mind he did not clear up one points 1241 At the present time a workman is entitled to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. He will still retain that if this Bill becomes law, but if he gets compensation to the extent of the benefits provided under this Bill his benefits cease. That is the point I want the Chancellor of the Exchequer to face. Even all the ingenuity and subtlety and the charm of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would fail to convince a working-class audience that that was not a correct statement.
Desiring, as I do, to see the Bill go through, if there was no alternative but to reduce the sick pay in order to get rid of this Clause, speaking for myself, I believe that would be a lesser evil. A second point is this: the last part of this Clause has a distinct tendency to weaken the trade union movement. I know that is not the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One of the strong reasons which now exists to induce workmen to join trade unions is the securing of a medium whereby compensation will be secured to them when accidents occur. Propaganda speeches are always taken up in part in showing the amount of compensation which the union has obtained for its members, and showing also that where there is no union the employers are apt to force a smaller scale on the men who are injured. If this Clause goes through that argument is taken away from the trade unions because the committee of the society which is their benefit society will be able to act for them—in fact is compelled to act for them.
In the minds of many hon. Members who have spoken on this Clause the working classes are regarded as malingering loafers. Someone has said it, and I am going to quote it. The hon. Member for
§ East Glamorgan justified his support of this Clause because, if it were not in the Bill, workmen would enter into dishonest compacts with their employers, secret contracts to get the compensation and draw the sick benefit at the same time. We on these benches resent that greatly.
Mr. C. EDWARDSI did not say anything of the kind; I did not say anything within a hundred thousand miles of it. What I did say was this: that we knew there were occasionally now collusive agreements, and that there were unconscionable agreements imposed on the workmen by the employers, and it was in consequence of that that the trade unionists themselves had fought to get that provision in the Workmen's Compensation Act which prevented any agreement being binding for settling compensation unless it was registered and approved by the county court.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEThe OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow will show who is right. The hon. Member argued for this Clause because if it was not there workmen would be able to enter into secret agreements with their employers, meaning, of course, that workmen are dishonest.3
Mr. C. EDWARDSIn my experience I have found workmen, some workmen, like some employers and like some Labour leaders, utterly dishonest.
§ Mr. KEIR HARDIEI ask the Chairman, if that is not the reason for this Clause, why is it there? The financial side is insignificant; it would be easily overcome.
§ Question put, "That the Clause, as Amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 99; Noes, 23.
1243| Division No. 293.] | AYES. | [5.10 a.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Hackett, John |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Crumley, Patrick | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton) | Davies, David (Montgomery Co.) | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Haworth, Sir Arthur A. |
| Armitage, Robert | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.) | Hayward, Evan |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Delany, William | Higham, John Sharp |
| Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Doris, William | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Benn, W. W. (Tower Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Duffy, William J. | Hughes, Spencer Leigh |
| Bennett-Goldney, Francis | Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan) |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Elverston, Sir Harold | John, Edward Thomas |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Ferens, Thomas Robinson | Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil) |
| Bryce, John Annan | Ffrench, Peter | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Fiennes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Keating, Matthew |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Furness, Stephen | King, Joseph (Somerset, North) |
| Clough, William | George. Rt. Hon. David Lloyd | Lawson. Sir W (Cumb'rl'nd., Cockerm'th) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Gulland, John William | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Ogden, Fred | Shortt, Edward |
| Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Smith, Harold (Warrington) |
| Maclean, Donald | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Tennant, Harold John |
| Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Pryce-Jones, Col. E. | Toulmin, Sir George |
| McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Raffan, Peter Wilson | Verney, Sir Harry |
| M'Laren, H. D. (Leics.) | Reddy, Michael | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Meagher, Michael | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Mond, Sir Alfred M. | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Webb, H. |
| Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | Robinson, Sidney | White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Nolan, Joseph | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Norman, Sir Henry | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Scott, A. MacCallum (Glasgow, Bridgeton) | |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Seely, Col, Rt. Hon. J. E. B. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Guest. |
| O'Doherty, Philip | Sheehy, David | |
| NOES; | ||
| Adamson, William | Goldstone, Frank | Thomas, James Henry (Derby) |
| Benn Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince) |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Wardle, George J. |
| Brace, William | Jowett, Frederick William | Wilkie, Alexander |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Lansbury, George | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Pointer, Joseph | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. C. Duncan and Mr. Parker. |
| Doughty, Sir George | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | |
| Gill, Alfred Henry | Taylor, John W. (Durham) |
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next, 24th July.
§ ADJOURNMENT—esolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Gulland.]
§ Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen minutes after Five a.m., Thursday. 20th July.