HC Deb 27 January 1943 vol 386 cc564-71

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 28, after "remuneration," to insert: or in the duration of employment in each week."—[Mr. Ness Edwards.]

Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Peake)

As the Committee will remember, we were unable to conclude the discussion of this Amendment in the limited time available to us on the day before Christmas. In moving to report Progress, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said that while he frankly saw no way of overcoming the difficulty which was troubling the Committee, he promised that we would examine the matter once more before the Committee stage was resumed. This re-examination has taken place and has confirmed the views which I expressed on the last occasion about the merits of the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Ness Edwards). I pointed out on that occasion that there were two possible methods of dealing with the grievance arising from the fact that partially disabled men suffer an automatic reduction in their compensation when a general increase in wage rates occurs. The two alternatives are either to disregard for the purpose of calculating the weekly payment certain additions to wages, or to follow the precedent laid down in Section II Sub-section (3) of the Act of 1925 and make an immediate review of pre-accident earnings whenever rates of remuneration are changed. The latter of these two methods is both the fairer and the simpler. It is fairer because it deals with the workman on the basis of what his position would have been had he remained uninjured in his pre-accident employment. It is simpler because it is equally applicable to cases of total and partial incapacity, and whether the workman who is partially incapacitated is in employment or not. The practical advantages, therefore, of this method are overwhelming. It can, moreover, be made retrospective to deal with cases arising many years ago.

The only difficulty about it—and it is a difficulty which I have never tried to conceal from the Committee—is that it is not possible in every case to ensure that the amount of compensation to be restored shall exactly equal the reduction in compensation which has taken place. In some cases it will be a little more and in some a little less. This difficulty will apply to only a comparatively small number of cases.

Mr. Tinker (Leigh)

Can the Minister give an example of cases in which it will be more?

Mr. Peake

I could cite an example, as where the time worked in the industry is shorter to-day than it was when the accident occurred. There are such cases, but they will be comparatively few.

This difficulty is inherent in the present system of calculating pre-accident earnings. As hon. Members are aware, this has been a matter of controversy for a good many years. It has always presented great difficulties on account of the wide variation in terms of employment in different trades and industries, and the seasonal nature of employment in many of them. While the existing system of calculating pre-accident earnings is admittedly not altogether satisfactory, no one has so far suggested a practical means of improving it. The Trades Union Congress gave evidence before the Royal Commission on this matter and put forward certain tentative suggestions, but they admitted that they did not succeed in boiling those suggestions down into actual concrete terms. This being the position, and this difficulty having become more prominent as a result of the discussions on the Bill, the Government propose that the method of calculating pre-accident earnings upon a basis that shall fairly assess the earning power of the workman shall be the subject of immediate examination, with a view to negotiation with representatives of employers and workmen at an early date. This course will be adopted without prejudice to any decision which the Government may reach upon its attitude towards the proposals contained in the Report of the Beveridge Committee.

This is a reasonable course for us to adopt. The Trades Union Congress have urged this matter upon us more than once in the last two years. It is a subject upon which in the past it has been impossible to reach any agreement and a matter to which the Home Office have given a good deal of thought. At the same time, there is a rather more accommodating spirit abroad at the present time in industry and I am not without hope that as a result of the examination proposed and of the discussions which will follow, we may be able to arrive at some formula which will be an improvement upon the present system.

In the period which has intervened between our Adjournment before Christmas and to-day, a minor defect in the drafting of Clause 6 has become apparent. We proposed to remedy that defect, but I will say a word more about this matter when I move the next Amendment standing in the name of my right hon. Friend. In view of the explanation I have given, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly will see his way to withdraw his Amendment and enable the Bill to proceed to the Statute Book.

Mr. Tinker

The Bill has been held up because of this Amendment, which we thought conveyed what we wanted. The partially incapacitated workmen could not stop in their present position and not be getting the full advantage of the advances. When these workmen get their partial compensation something is deducted from ft. The intention of everybody in the country is that they should not suffer in this way. An agitation started and it was taken up in the House of Commons. We got the Home Office to see our point of view. It was stated that it was the intention of the Department to meet the difficulty.

I am pledged to my party, and I must accept this form of words, but I must make a protest because under these words the man who worked short time before will have his compensation based upon, say, four days a week. Half-a-crown a day is to go on, and he will only have 10s. added to his pre-accident earnings. He will suffer a reduction of his partial compensation because of the advances which have been given. You will get two men receiving partial compensation in a colliery yard, and one compensation will be on an average of four days a week and the other on six days a week. The latter will get the full amount and the former will get something less. We have told our men that Parliament is dealing with the matter and that full partial compensation will be restored to them. Now we have to go back and tell them that this enlightened House of Commons has not been able to give justice to our injured workmen. I take the opportunity to voice my protest. We have to meet our conference in a fortnight's time and some explanation will be wanted from us of how this thing has passed through the House of Commons. We have done all we can but our friends in the mining movement say that they want the Bill and that the Home Office is not prepared to move until we have given way on this matter. We have to give way, but I voice my protest at the serious injustice being done to the partial compensation men.

Mr. Ness Edwards (Caerphilly)

Before I ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment, I would like to recall that statements were made before the Bill was brought forward, on the strength of which many of us closely associated with the mining industry told the men in the industry that by the proposed legislation their partial compensation would be restored. We found on examining the Bill that it did not redeem the pledge in a number of cases. There was no qualification about the first statement that was issued that partial compensation was to be restored. It was to be frozen. We are in the difficult position of having to go back to the men in the industry and say that what was said to be the Government's original intention is not to be carried out.

I am extremely pleased to hear the undertaking given on behalf of the Government that this bitter pill is to have a coating of sugar, in the sense that the Government now realise that the method proposed in the Amendment standing in the name of my Friends and myself ought really to be applied to the original calculation of pre-accident earnings, and that the only reason for not conceding the proposal in the Amendment is that there would be two methods of calculating pre-accident earnings if the Amendment were carried. If we are to have a complete examination of the problem of calculating earnings, I am satisfied that we can give to our men the feeling that although for the time being they will not get what was promised, they will get much more than we anticipated in the commencement, as a result of the delay that will ensue. In view of this position, I beg to ask leave of the Committee to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Peake

I beg to move, in page 5, line 33, at the end to insert: (2) For the purpose of calculating any such weekly payment or supplementary allowances as aforesaid, the average weekly earnings of the workman before the accident shall, if any change or changes occurred in the relevant period before the accident in the rates of remuneration obtaining in the class of employment in which the workman was employed during that period, be deemed, subject to the last foregoing subsection, to be the average weekly earnings which he would have earned during that period if the rates obtaining at the date of the accident had obtained throughout that period. (3) Where any such weekly payment has been increased under subsection (2) of section eleven of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925, or under that subsection as applied by any such scheme as aforesaid, and, on any subsequent review of the weekly payment, it appears to the tribunal that any material change in rates of remuneration has occurred since the date when the weekly payment was so increased or (if it has been varied under this subsection) since the date of the last such variation, and that the amount of the weekly payment would have been fixed at that date at a higher or lower figure if the rates of remuneration obtaining at the date of the subsequent review had obtained at the date aforesaid, the tribunal may (subject to the maximum provided in section nine of the said Act) make such increase or reduction of the weekly payment and of any supplementary allowances payable in respect thereof as, having regard to the said change in rates of remuneration and any other material change of circumstances, the tribunal thinks proper. These two rather formidable looking new Sub-sections carry out the general purpose of the Clause. Hon. Members will remember that Sub-section (1) of the Clause deals with the case where the change in the rate of remuneration occurs after the date of the accident. Where the change in the rate of remuneration occurs before the date of the accident, if it occurs more than 12 months before, obviously the whole of the increase will be reflected in the injured workman's computation of his pre-accident earnings. The first of these two Sub-sections is to deal with the case where the change in the rate of remuneration occurs less than 12 months, perhaps only a few days, before the date of the accident, and therefore, under the ordinary operation of workmen's compensation law, only part of the period at the increased rate of wages would have come into the calculation of the pre-accident earnings. The new Sub-section (3) deals with the case of persons under the age of 21½ who have a right of review under Section (2) of Section 11 of the Act of 1925. The effect of the new Sub-section is to enable those persons also to obtain the benefit of increases in rates of remuneration which occur after the date of the last review of their cases under Section 11 (2). I feel sure that both these new Sub-sections will be acceptable to the Committee.

Mr. Ness Edwards

I cannot resist the temptation of saying a word or two about the new Sub-section (2). The reason given for not accepting the Amendment which has just been withdrawn was that a new principle was being introduced, but the reason apparently for moving the new Sub-section (2) is to establish a new principle in the method of calculating pre-accident earnings and is conferring upon the workman the benefit of a principle which has always been denied to him under the main Act. It is certainly a change which we very much welcome. With regard to Sub-section (3), I want to say that it rectifies a very grave injustice which has been felt for many years with regard to our men who have accidents under the age of 21.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 38, at the end, insert: and the expression 'the tribunal' means, in relation to any weekly payment, the county court judge, arbitrator, committee or board by whom any review of the payment is, in default of agreement, carried out."—[Mr. Peake.]

Mr. Peake

I beg to move, in page 6, line 3, at the end, to insert: (5) Section five of the Workmen's Compensation (Supplementary Allowances) Act, 1940 (which enables the Registrar of Friendly Societies to amend schemes certified by him under Section thirty-one of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1925), shall apply in relation to the provisions of this Section in like manner as it applies in relation to the provisions of that Act. This Amendment enables the Registrar of Friendly Societies, where industries have contracted out of the principal Act, to amend the schemes on similar lines to the provisions of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Tinker

I want to nut a question to the Under-Secretary. This Bill has been held up to try to get a settlement. When is it expected that payment is to be made? Is it to be retrospective for any period of the time it has been passing through the House? Is there no power in the hands of the Government to date back this Bill so that payment may be made from the time it was expected that it would be passed by the House? I would like to know what can be done.

Mr. Peake

The answer is "No, sir." It would be a most revolutionary proposal if the time taken up by the discussions in the House were always credited, as it were, to the parties proposed to be benefited by the legislation. Moreover, in order to secure agreement on a proposal of that sort, I should have to enter into negotiations with both sides of the industry. There would not be any prospect, as far as I can see, of obtaining agreement. Even if we were to enter upon such discussions, it would further delay the passing of the Bill and the conferring of these benefits upon the workpeople who will benefit by them.

Mr. Tinker

It always seems that we get the worst end of the stick. It is always the workman who has to suffer. If we want to raise something, the threat of delay in the carrying-out of the Measure has its effect in causing us to give way on many things.

Mr. Ness Edwards

There is one technical point on which an assurance here might be useful; that is, with regard to the phrasing from line 25 to the end of the paragraph. It says: …if and whenever a change occurs after the date of the accident in the rates of remuneration obtaining in the class of employment… etc., it shall be deemed …so long as the changed rates obtain without further change, to be the average weekly earnings…" etc. What is troubling some of us is whether under this Clause as it now stands a review can only take place once. It is "if a change" occurs, not "if changes occur" there shall be review, but "if…a change occurs" a review shall take place, and there will be an automatic adjustment so long as that change continues. It appears that there is no provision where a second change follows. It appears that the employer will satisfy the purposes of the Sl[...]tute, if, when a change has occurred, there is a review. The phrasing as it now stands is rather weak with regard to the claim of the workman to a further review when a further change occurs. I wonder whether this phrasing could be looked at in another place to meet this point.

Mr. Peake

I am pleased to give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks. I have been into this point with the Parliamentary draftsmen, and they are absolutely clear that the words mean precisely what they say. They mean "…if and whenever a change occurs…" Therefore, they apply to every change, however many changes may have occurred before. I can give the hon. Member the assurance he asks for in that respect.

Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.