§ 21. Mr. SPENCERasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that considerable dissatisfaction exists amongst mine workers with the system and decisions of medical referees acting under the Workmen's Compensation Acts; and whether he can see his way to make early provision for an appeal in case of dissatisfaction by either an employer or employé with the decision of a medical referee to a medical appeal board?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON - HICKSSuch representations as I have received hardly hear out the suggestion in the first part of the question, and, as the hon. Member is aware, proposals to substitute a medical board for the single referee have been discussed on several recent occasions in this House, but rejected. The proposal in the question to retain the single referee but allow an appeal from him to 1211 a board would appear to be open to still greater objection.
§ Mr. SPENCERIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that medical referees are stating that there axe no means provided by the Home Office for taking X-ray photographs, for instance; and they are passing judgment upon men who have been seriously injured without having before them an X-ray photograph?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI am not aware of that, and, if the hon. Member will forgive me for saying so, it does not arise out of the question. If he will put down a question about X-ray photographs, I will endeavour to give him full information.
§ Mr. T. WILLIAMSIs the right hon. Gentleman not aware that many of these referees dealing with individual cases are often employed by the employers, and paid large fees, and then, when they become referees in cases of this description, it causes a good deal of suspicion in the minds of the injured workpeople? Will he consider the advisability of sending these cases to a medical board?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSNo, Sir, I do not think a medical board would get us out of the difficulty. I am quite aware—I think I have seen the hon. Member about it—of the difficulties, and the matter is under my careful consideration. I want to remedy it.
§ Mr. SPENCERThe right hon. Gentleman asks me to put down another question about X-rays. I put it down in this question. I use the word "system," and surely the word "system" covers what I am asking.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI do not think it does.
§ Mr. SPEAKERAnother question had better be put down.
§ 31. Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary if he is aware that the cost of administration of national health insurance is, approximately, 13 per cent., of unemployment insurance 8 per cent., while the cost of administration of workmen's compensation insurance, including profits, is, approximately, 50 per cent.; 1212 and will he consider the advisability of providing a national scheme for the administration of workmen's compensation?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe figures for 1924 show that in that year the expenses and profits of the insurance companies amounted to approximately 44 per cent. of their total income. That figure, however, was subject to a further reduction through the operation of the agreement with the Accident Offices Association, described on page 10 of the Statistics, which in the case of companies belonging to the association limits these charges to a maximum of 40 per cent. of the premiums and provides for the necessary adjustment by means of a rebate to the employers. These figures only apply to the insurance companies. A large proportion of the total compensation paid under the Act is paid by mutual associations of employers and uninsured employers and the cost of administration by the insurance companies must not, therefore, be taken to represent the cost over the whole system. The answer to the second part of the question is in the negative.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSWill the right hon. Gentleman reply to the plain question as to the different percentages under the Compensation Act and under the Unemployment Act? I think he might give a brief answer to that question.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI am aware of the discrepancy. The answer is a long one, but it explains my point of view.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSWill the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of bringing compensation administration within the national system; and further is he aware that every 10 per cent. reduction in the case of the administration would mean a 20 per cent. increase in the compensation payment?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSNot at all. It might mean a 20 per cent. decrease in the contribution paid by the employer.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSIs he aware that the employers are demanding a reduction in the cost of production in the hope of improving their trade, and will he try to bring these costs down?
§ 33. Mr. WILLIAMSalso asked the Home Secretary if he is aware that, although there were 221 more fatal accidents in 1924 than in 1923, or 8.3 per cent., 10,064 more non-fatal cases in 1924 than in 1923, or 2.1 per cent., the amount of compensation paid fell from £7,134,096 to £6,675,038, a decrease of £459,058 or 6.4 per cent.; and, as this decrease in payments is due to the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, will he consider amending legislation to improve the position of injured workmen and their dependants?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe hon. Member has quoted correctly the figures given in the Home Office Statistics of Compensation for 1924 in regard to the seven groups of industries which are required to make returns. He has, however, omitted to point out that the decrease in the total amount paid was due entirety to a decrease in the compensation in disablement cases resulting from the repeal of the War Addition Acts. In cases of death there was a large increase amounting to as much as 33 per cent. The fact that there has been a decrease in the payments as compared with 1923 does not seem to me to afford arty sufficient ground in itself far revising the present scales of compensation which were discussed and settled by Parliament in 1923, and I should not be prepared to reopen this question after so short an interval.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSIs the Home Secretary not aware that the 1923 Act has made a definite decrease in compensation payments per accident case, and does he not think the existing Act is inflicting undue injustice on the injured workpeople of this country?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSNo, Sir, I do not. I agree that the Act did reduce the payments because the War additions to wages had been removed, but I do not think there is any injustice.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSIs the right hon. Gentleman aware—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is a matter for the consideration of the Government.