§ 4. Mr. CECIL WILSONasked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the death of Samuel Coward, of 130, Bradley Street, Crookes, Sheffield, and to the statement at the inquest by the medical referee under the metal grinders' silicosis scheme that Coward died from silicosis contracted at his work; if he is aware that two of Coward's employers said they knew nothing about the silicosis scheme being in force; that Coward in recent years, though not working at a grindstone, did work in the same grinding hull as a number of grinders; and can he state whether, in view of the evidence disclosed in this case, he will consider the desirability for amended or additional regulations?
§ Sir V. HENDERSONMy right hon. Friend has received a report on this case. It shows that Coward's last employer who had employed him since 1924 was quite aware of the Scheme which came into force in 1927. His evidence on this point at the inquest was not correctly reported in the press. The Scheme applies not only to employment on a grindstone but also to any work incidental thereto, and to glazing, when carried on in the same room, and it appears from the evidence that the deceased had been employed in glazing in a hull where several grindstones were in operation. If so, his case came within the Scheme.
§ Mr. RENNIE SMITHIn view of the fact that this particular disease is so slow in manifesting itself, cannot further consideration be given to the matter, so that the payment, when made, can become retrospective?
§ Sir V. HENDERSONThe whole question of the incidence of this disease and the compensation to which sufferers are entitled is under consideration by my right hon. Friend, as the hon. Member knows, but it is a very difficult and complicated matter.
§ Mr. SMITHCould the hon. and gallant Gentleman say when there is likely to be a report on the matter?
§ Sir V. HENDERSONMy right hon. Friend has set up, or is in process of setting up, a special medical committee to consider the possibility of compensation for partial disablement as opposed to total disablement, and then we may be in a better position to consider what we should do.
§ 8. Mr. TINKERasked the Home Secretary if it is his intention to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act this Session; and, if so, will he indicate what changes will be made?
§ Sir V. HENDERSONNo such Bill is at present in contemplation.
§ 17. Mr. T. WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary the total value of premiums paid as insurance against accidents to mine workers under the Workmen's Compensation Act for the last year for which figures are available, and the amount paid as compensation to mine workers during the same period?
§ Sir V. HENDERSONThe total amount of the compensation paid in the mining industry in 1927 was £3,014,161. The amount of the premiums paid to insurance companies is not known, but I may point out that only quite a small proportion of the total compensation in the mining industry is paid by these companies. In 1927 it amounted to £274,289, or 9.1 per cent. of the total.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSDoes the hon. and gallant Gentleman think that this amount of profit ought to be obtained out of the men or boys who are injured in accidents in mines, or anywhere else?
§ Sir V. HENDERSONI do not see anything about profits in the question.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSCannot the hon. and gallant Gentleman separate, in plain figures, the amount of premiums paid, and the amount received in compensation?
§ Sir V. HENDERSONI have gone into the question, and it is not possible to give the exact information which the hon. Member wants in this matter.
§ 18. Mr. WILLIAMSasked the Home Secretary the total premiums paid as in- 1885 surance against accidents under the Workmen's Compensation Act, for the last year for which figures are available; the total amount paid as compensation; and the percentage of costs for expenses and profits, separately?
§ Sir V. HENDERSONThe premium income for 1927 of the companies which make returns to the Board of Trade was £5,907,576. The corresponding amount paid as compensation (including legal and medical expenses) was £3,319,046. The corresponding expenses and profits amounted to £1,924,846 and £663,684, respectively. I must point cut, however, that under the agreement between the Accident Offices Association and the Home Office employers insured with the companies concerned are entitled to have repaid to them, by way of rebate, the amount by which the compensation paid fell short of 62½ per cent. of the premiums paid.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSIs the hon. and gallant Gentleman satisfied with the fact that about 47 per cent. of the premiums paid go for working expenses and profits; and does he not think the time opportune for the State to undertake the organisation of these compensation services?
§ Sir V. HENDERSONNo, Sir. In answer to a similar question on 13th December, 1927, I tried to point out to the hon. Member that you cannot compare the working of workmen's compensation insurance with the working of unemployment or health insurance. They are entirely different.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSIs the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that I am not attempting to confuse workmen's compensation insurance with unemployment insurance? But he himself admits that 47 per cent. of the total premiums paid go for working expenses and profits, and therefore the injured workpeople only receive approximately 50 per cent. of what they are entitled to.
§ Sir V. HENDERSONMy hon. Friend knows that the injured people are receiving what they are entitled to under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and they would not receive any more if the State organised the scheme instead of private enterprise.
§ Mr. WILLIAMSIs the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that where States have undertaken the organisation of this kind of insurance, the insured workpeople receive approximately 100 per cent. better advantages than the work-people of Great Britain?
§ Sir V. HENDERSONI am not aware that the insurance systems of other countries are readily comparable with our own.