§ 22. Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that Section 9 of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, gives no protection to injured workmen who have partially recovered and are fit for light work; that in every case the employer can evade responsibility by stating that the cause of unemployment is due to the state of the labour market and not to the accident; and, in view of the intention of Parliament when this Act was passed, will he consider amending this Section at an early date?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI could not accept the sweeping allegations contained in this question, but I am fully alive to the importance of the matter to which the hon. Member calls attention, and I can assure him that the whole question is being most carefully inquired into and considered.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSIs not the right hon. Gentleman aware that we have already had three years' experience, and that invariably, particularly in view of the large volume of unemployment, a partially incapacitated man has no chance at all under this particular Section?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI am inclined to retort by asking the hon. Gentleman if he is not aware that the Trades Union Council came to see me on this very matter 10 days ago. We had a very long discussion, and the question is being considered by myself.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSWhile the general question under the Workmen's Compensation Act may be a matter to be deferred for many months, cannot the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of amending this particular Section which works adversely against the injured man?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI told the hon. Gentleman's leaders who came to see me 10 days ago that I would consider it. I am considering whether anything can be done in the matter.
§ Mr. STEPHENWill the Minister also consider the question of defining what is meant by light work?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI think that that can be done.