HC Deb 16 May 1935 vol 301 cc1864-5
14. Mr. TINKER

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that persons who have had industrial disease are being refused employment when they sign that they have had it; and whether he will consider amending Section 9 (4) of the Workmen's Compensation Act so as to make it clear that the word injury includes disease, so as to enable those who are unable to get employment through having had an accident or industrial disease shall be treated the same?

Sir J. GILMOUR

I am aware that colliery owners often refuse employment to men who have had nystagmus, but, as explained in previous replies, the issue is by no means a simple one, and in my opinion a full inquiry into this and other questions connected with the payment of compensation for this disease would be necessary before any amendment of the law could be usefully considered.

Mr. T. SMITH

Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman to institute an inquiry, in view of what has taken place in various parts of the country?

Sir J. GILMOUR

All I can say is that the matter is being very carefully considered at the present time.

Mr. TINKER

Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the recent decision of the House of Lords, which is being followed in the lower courts, under which men suffering from industrial disease are excluded from having the same right as men suffering from accidents? That is the point on which I would like him to make some inquiry. They are not being treated on the same footing.

17. Mr. TINKER

asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of many cases where injured workmen have failed to get compensation through their employer not being insured; and whether he will now consider amending the Workmen's Compensation Act to include compulsory insurance for all workmen?

Sir J. GILMOUR

I am not aware of many such cases outside the coal mining industry, which was dealt with in the Workmen's Compensation (Coal Mines) Act of last year, and I am afraid that in any event there would be no prospect of further legislation on the subject this year.

Mr. TINKER

Would the right hon. Gentleman do me the honour to read, if I send it to him, the report which appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" of Monday last, of the remarks of one of His Majesty's Judges, who pointed out this error in the law and asked that it should be remedied? I shall be happy to send it to the right hon. Gentleman.

Sir J. GILMOUR

Thank you.