§ Mr. Patrick JenkinI beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 16, line 39, at end insert:
Provided that—Clause 27 imposes a new obligation on employers to pay for surgical, medical 1464 dental or optical treatment for seamen who receive such treatment outside the United Kingdom. In a number of cases the treatment will be occasioned by an accident in which there is liability on a third party. An obvious example is a seaman who goes ashore in Yokohama and is run over by a Japanese bus and he has a cause of action against the bus company. The employer is under an obligation to pay, in the first instance, for the medical treatment. But, under English law, he would have a right of subrogation against the bus company for any costs incurred on behalf of the injured seaman.
- (i) the liability of those persons shall be conditional upon the person so employed or his legal personal representatives affording to those persons every facility to prosecute in his name any claim for indemnity or damages or otherwise, and allowing them full discretion in the conduct of any proceedings or in the settlement of any claim, and, to the extent of such conditional liability, surrendering to them all rights in respect of such claim;
- (ii) nothing contained in this section shall prejudice any right of recovery of such expenses from a person other than the person so employed.
It seems to us that it is necessary to provide for the seaman, as it were, to lend his name to any proceedings to enable the employer to recover from the bus company. If the seaman does not lend his name and allows the employer to proceed with the action, it may well be that the employer will never be able to recover anything from the guilty party, namely, the bus company.
When we raised this matter in Committee, the Minister of State said that he was
not persuaded as to the practical necessity of this proposal.He also said that… if the point is to be covered at all, should not it be dealt with in the contract Of employment …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 29th January, 1970; c. 286.]This does not seem to me to be enough. It might well be covered in the contract of employment and a foreign court might recognise that and enable the action to proceed against the bus company on the basis of the contractual obligation. But here we are imposing on the employer a statutory obligation to pay the medical expenses; it is being required of him by Act of Parliament. It is not unreasonable that the same Act should make those expenses recoverable by the employer if somebody else is liable at law to pay them.That is all that we ask. I hope that the Minister of State, having said that he would look at this point again, has had second thoughts and will recognise that there may be something in it. Perhaps our wording is not right, but it is fairly clear that it should be dealt with 1465 in a statute and should not rest on contract. I hope that the Minister of State will look on the Amendment more favourably than he did when we moved it in Committee.
§ Mr. Goronwy RobertsI cannot do that, although I sympathise with the motive behind the Amendment. As I said in Committee, we agree that it is reasonable that an employer should be assisted by the seaman concerned in recovering, if legally possible, expenses he has incurred when an employee has been injured by a third party. However, I am not persuaded as to the necessity or desirability of making statutory provision in the Bill to that effect.
I have looked into this matter and I have taken advice in the light of our discussions in Committee. I have, in particular, studied the remarks of the hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Patrick Jenkin) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn). I am still of the opinion that the Bill is not the place in which to make such provisions as these. I still think that these are matters which are more appropriately dealt with in the contract of employment between the employer and the seaman.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) said:
I feel that it is reasonable, either as an Amendment to Clause 26"—now Clause 27—or in the contract of service, as the Minister suggested …".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 29th January, 1970; c. 287.]Such contractual provision could take account of the many countries and circumstances in which recoveries might have to be made. I believe that there would be advantage in doing it contractually. A Statute is not as flexible for this purpose as contracts would be.I can only assure the hon. Member that I have thought hard and consulted about this and that I have not found it possible to meet his wishes on the point.
§ Mr. JenkinIn the circumstances, perhaps it would be wrong, in the light of the further investigations that the Minister has made, to press the matter. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.