§
Motion made, and Question proposed:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £750,000 be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, for Superannuation and other non-effective annual allowances, additional allowances, gratuities, compassionate allowances and supplementary pensions in respect of civil employment.
§ 11.0 p.m.
§ Mr. PeakeWe pass from one interest to another. When the Estimate for injury grants, that is to say workmen's compensation, in the Royal Ordnance factories turns out to be only half the sum actually required, I think the right hon. Gentleman ought to give some information on how the original miscalculation came to be made. I refer to Subhead J.
§ Mr. ButcherI wish to express my concern that the amount which it is necessary to ask in respect of injury grants should be so large. I hope that whoever replies will be able to give an assurance that factories have the most modern methods for the prevention of injuries to work-people. Steps should be taken to keep the number down to the smallest possible figure We cannot afford to have skilled workers injured in work of this kind.
§ Mr. Glenvil HallThe increase by £335,000 in the amount under Subhead J, for injury grants, is entirely due to the abnormal number of claims which have been received, particularly from employees of the Royal Ordnance factories. It is partly due to the inevitable lag which takes place. Payments tend to overlap into another year. Following the war, a very much larger number of claims was put in when men left the factories as redundant or when the factories were closed down. Quite a number of such cases are only now coming forward for settlement. Also, owing to the higher rates of wages, compensation claims and payments have been higher than was previously the case. In addition, there has been a tendency to make lump sum payments rather than weekly payments.
These factors taken together meant that an under-estimate was made when the original sum, which was thought to be sufficient, was put down. I regret that this increase is as much as £335,000, but 1124 these claims are there. The Treasury is in duty bound to pay them. It cannot query them in any way. That is the amount which I am afraid I must ask the Committee to give us.
§ Colonel Gomme-DuncanI do not understand why there should be this large difference. The right hon. Gentleman says that a number of people have left the Royal Ordnance factories on the changeover from war to peace. It appears to me that less instead of more money should be required. How is it that people come to claim compensation for injuries when they have left that employment?
§ Mr. Howard (Westminster, St. George's)Can the Financial Secretary give the Committee an assurance that it is no part of the cause of this large Supplementary Estimate that there has been an increase in the rate of accidents in these factories? That is a point which worries me. It is a thing which is suggested at first sight of this figure. If the right hon. Gentleman could give the Committee that assurance, I would be satisfied.
§ Sir W. DarlingI know something about workmen's compensation and I regard this as a most alarming figure. If it becomes known that compensation for injuries during State employment in the Royal Ordnance factories costs £681,000, there will be a reluctance to enter the service of the State, which would be very disquieting to hon. Members opposite. This is surely astonishingly bad housekeeping. The insurance companies have for 30 years been doing this sort of business, and any such enormous expansion as this would have been disastrous. I sincerely hope that this kind of thing will not repeatedly come before the Committee, because it will arouse in the minds of people the idea that a great many people have been involved in accidents in ordnance factories and will arouse great disquiet in the minds of those who have to find these sums of money. I feel that this really calls for some inquiry, if the standard of accidents is so very high in Government factories. This astonishing payment of £681,000, which is double the amount met by two companies doing workmen's compensation business, really disquiets me.
§ Mr. OsborneThe Financial Secretary, in his reply, said the amount was large because lump sums had been paid to the 1125 men who had claims. I have always thought that it was the best trade union opinion that it was a very bad thing to allow an injured man to take a lump sum payment, and, if that be so, and I have heard it explained many times on Socialist platforms, why should a Socialist Government do something they never meant to do?
§ Mr. Glenvil HallIt all depends what the lump sum amounts to, and whether it is an amount which is just and proper for the injured man to receive. I am only dealing with the reasons for this Estimate, and I can only give the Committee the true explanation. These ordnance factories have been going for six or seven years, largely years of war, and a number of people employed have suffered injury. Some of them suffered a minor injury, while others suffered a major injury, at any rate, the loss of a finger or of a couple of fingers, but they carried on, thinking they could serve the country during the war years, although they had suffered this injury. They had a claim, which they kept alive, and, when the ordnance factory closed down, or they became redundant, they put in one final claim, which was settled. We are here telescoping into one period a number of claims which would normally have been spread over a much longer time. I hope that the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) will not imagine for one moment that work in Government factories is necessarily dangerous, or that, during this period, a great many injuries were suffered. In actual fact, this is part of the clearing-up of the war years, and we have to take that into account when we look at the Supplementary Estimate, which I now ask the Committee to approve.
§ Colonel Gomme-DuncanAre we to understand that people leaving an ordnance factory put in claims for the loss of, for example, fingers in accidents that happened five years ago? As I understand it, under the existing workmen's compensation legislation, that is not legal.
§ Mr. OsborneMay I press the Financial Secretary on this point? The trade unions have always been agreed that for a workman to take a lump sum was a bad thing. If it has been a bad thing in past years to take a lump sum from a private em- 1126 ployer, why should it be a good thing now to take It from the State?
§ Mr. Pritt (Hammersmith, North)Surely, the hon. Member opposite is displaying the most abysmal ignorance? Many hon. Members on these Benches have been intimately associated with workmen's compensation for years, and have devoted a great deal of time to this matter. We all know that there are a great many cases, especially in the early stages of injury, when it is unwise to take a lump sum in settlement especially if it is offered by ordinary means by the insurance companies, who have been notorious for many years in this respect. So much was that the case that we had to make it the law of the land that no settlement made by an insurance company or by a lawyer would be legal and binding until it had been approved by the registrar of the courts. In other cases of course, it is better to take a lump sum in settlement.
The ChairmanI cannot allow this Debate on the Supplementary Estimate to become a Debate on workmen's compensation administration.
§ Mr. PrittWith very great respect, Major Milner, you have been listening to a great deal of nonsense in the last few minutes, and I only wanted to clear the position up.
§ Mr. Manningham-Buller (Daventry)We have listened with much interest to the address on workmen's compensation from the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) but I do not propose to follow him in that. I think that the explanation of this Vote by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was most unsatisfactory. I gathered that the latter part of the Vote related to lump sum settlements, and the rest of it related to overdue claims, which are now arising owing to redundancy and through factories closing down, but on neither of these grounds does workmen's compensation become payable. I really think that the Financial Secretary ought to make it dear how these claims arose and why they were not disposed of be fore. It seems to me that the Financial Secretary is in this dilemma, that he must either say that the rate of accidents in the ordnance factories has exceeded the numbers in other factories—though I hope 1127 that is not the case—or the Government have been extremely dilatory in dealing with the cases against them. If an in dividual, after suffering his injury, has also to suffer a great deal of delay a suspicion does arise that the number of claims have been so great that the man went on earning his ex gratia rate of pay and under those circumstances the liability to pay arose.
§ Mr. PrittI gave way before, Major Milner, because I thought you called me to do so in order to facilitate the Committee, but as we have just listened to a little additional nonsense being talked, I must be permitted to continue what I was saying. The Financial Secretary gave the instance of a man who has lost a couple of fingers, and who finds that owing to full employment his work is greatly needed, and he can go on and earn full money. When he gets to the end of that work, there is no real necessity for him to continue working under handicap and the loss of two fingers is a typical workmen's compensation claim. It is a little undefinable and a little difficult, and sometimes when the ingenuity of the insurance companies is devoted to it, it is harder still to define. However, the loss of two fingers is a real claim, and insurance companies are glad to pay money as would the employer to be rid of that claim. The real difference here is that there is real conscience on the part of the Royal ordnance factories paying £600,000 in workmen's compensation and the insurance companies, because where £600,000 is due by them they only pay an average ratio payment of 50 per cent. and someone else has to pay the remainder.
§
Resolved:
That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £750,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March, 1947 for superannuation and other non-effective annual allowances, additional allowances, gratuities, compassionate allowances and supplementary pensions in respect of civil employment.