WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BILL. (Hansard, 19 December 1906)

§ LORD BELPER
thought it would be within the recollection of the House 1468 that there was some discussion on an Amendment which he had moved to Clause 2. On the suggestion of the Lord Chancellor he had put in the word "or," instead of "and" at the end of Clause 2 (1) (a), so that that part of the clause read— That such want, defect, or inaccuracy was occasioned by mistake, absence from the United Kingdom, or other reasonable cause; or (b) the failure to make a claim. and so on. Those words were put in conditionally on the understanding that they should be reconsidered on Report. He had, however, found that they did not at all carry out his object, which was to guard against the time for claiming being extended where it might prejudice the defence that would have to be made by the employers. He would only say that if words could be inserted in somewhat like the original form— Provided that the employer is not prejudiced in his defence by the delay in making the claim, he would be glad to have them inserted, but he had rather understood, on the former stage of the Bill, that those words would not be agreed to by the other House. If the Government accepted them, he would be willing to have them put in that form. Otherwise, he would move to omit the words which had been added, leaving the clause without the words inserted on the Committee stage. If the noble Lord in charge of the Bill would state what his view was with regard to those words, he would then take whatever course he thought desirable.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
said the Amendment was one moved by Lord Belper, and the Lord Chancellor had suggested an Amendment to the noble Lord's Amendment. That was adopted by Lord Belper, who now found that it scarcely carried out his intention. He (Earl Beauchamp) thought it better, as the Amendment did not meet with the noble Lord's wishes, that he should move an Amendment now; because on the whole it would probably be more in accordance with his wishes that the clause or sub-clause should return to its original condition, than that it should go down to another place as it stood.

§ LORD BELPER
said the alternative he proposed was that he should put in the 1469 words, "provided that" and then put in the rest of the words. That was what he would prefer to move, if that would be acceptable. He thought he had better move that the words "provided that" be inserted, instead of "or."

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
was afraid there was very little chance of the Amendment in that shape being accepted in another place, and therefore he hoped the noble Lord would not press his Amendment, but would be satisfied with the other course suggested, namely, leaving out all the words after "cause."

§ LORD BELPER
said his object was not to put forward either unreasonable amendments or amendments which would not be accepted by the other House. Under those circumstances, he would ask to have the words struck out after the word "cause" to the end.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
said that on Clause 8 he wished to move a small Amendment. This was a clause which the draughtsman had found it very difficult to make really satisfactory, and they hoped this would be the last addition to it, and would give no loophole whatever to any lawyer to find a way out. The Amendment he had to propose was, to leave out "requisite" before the word "information," and to insert the word "such" in its place; and in line 12, after the word "furnished," to insert— Or is not sufficient to enable that employer to take proceedings under the next following proviso. He thought their Lordships would see that that was really designed for the protection of employers. He begged to move.

§ LORD BELPER
said there was a small consequential Amendment which would have to be inserted in the schedule. At page 22, line 16, the word "applicants" should be in the singular. The fact was, the word "either" had been inserted, instead of the word "both," in the Committee stage; and in order to make the provision read properly, it would have to be "on payment by the applicant," instead of "on payment by the applicants."

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
said he had now to deal with a very important Amendment, which had been inserted in Schedule 1. He was afraid the mistake was partly owing to his own fault. They had been discussing the question of commutation, voluntary and compulsory, and as the Bill was somewhat complicated, he was unable to point out to the noble Lord, at the time he asked the Question, the provisions in the Bill which dealt with voluntary commutation. The wish of the noble Lord was that there should be nothing in this paragraph of the schedule which would prevent voluntary commutation; and at the time he (Earl Beauchamp) was unable to point out that voluntary commutation was dealt with under an entirely different section—he thought Section 17—while this paragraph dealt entirely with the question of compulsory commutation. It was rather because he was unable to satisfy the noble Lord that the Amendment was inserted by a somewhat narrower majority than was usual in their Lordships' House. Under those circumstances, he would ask the noble Lord (Lord Belper) to allow the words as they originally stood to go back, on condition that a proviso was inserted to make it perfectly clear. The words he proposed were— Provided that nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as preventing agreements being made for the redemption of a weekly payment by a lump sum. He thought that made it perfectly clear; and he might remind the noble Lord that money obtained in commutation was very often squandered; and that the Digby Committee laid great stress upon commutation.

§ LORD BELPER
said the noble Earl (Earl Beauchamp)had been good enough 1471 to communicate this suggestion to him before the discussion of this stage of the Bill; and he thought that the words proposed by the noble Earl really made clear what he was anxious about with regard to this paragraph. His object was not to limit the sum which might be assessed when the employer made application, but to make it quite clear that an agreement could be come to to pay a less sum as between the two parties themselves. If the words proposed were inserted, they would carry out his view, and would allow of such agreements being made. Those agreements had been very numerous in the past, and it would be very much to the interest of employer and employee if they were allowed to be made in the future also. Under these circumstances, he begged to withdraw the words which had been inserted; and he would ask the noble Lord to move the words which he had suggested instead.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
said he was very much obliged to the noble Lord (Lordhelper) and begged to move accordingly.

*LORD KINNAIRD
did not know whether he might, without notice, move the omission of provisoes (c) (d) and (e) from paragraph 9 of the second schedule of the Bill. In another place, provisoes (a) and (b) were put in; and a good many of those interested in the working of the Bill thought that they would fully meet the case; but somehow while they were left in, (c) (d) and (e) were not deleted. He would not go into the matter at any length; but their Lordships were aware that in the working out of these compensation appeals the expenses and the lawyers' bills ran up very high; and this further appeal which was allowed to those interested in the workman's case would add very considerably to the expenses both of the workman and of the employer. For instance, a case had lately come up in which one Lord Belper
1472 of the unions found the money in order that the case might go on; and, although the workman was quite satisfied, and eventually got what the company had settled with him for, he was told to claim for the full six months. Eventually, he was exonerated from the costs, and the company was allowed to go against the union. He did not know whether the Government had thought of provisoes (c) (d) and (e) being unnecessary; or, if so, whether they would consent to leave them out.

§ EARL BEAUCHAMP
was afraid that it was quite impossible for His Majesty's Government at this late period to accept such a serious Amendment as the one suggested without notice. They had had a very long—perhaps he might say a very interesting—discussion on a previous occasion, dealing with the general machinery of the Bill. A suggestion was not made to this effect by any noble Lord. They had been unfortunate in not having the presence of the noble Lord (Lord Kinnaird) on that occasion, and he hoped that the noble Lord would accept his assurance on behalf of His Majesty's Government that these special clauses were put in with the approval of the Government and he was sorry they could not now omit them.

*LORD KINNAIRD
said he would not press the matter. It was to have been moved by someone last night, but apparently it was not done. There was, therefore, nothing to do now but to let it drop.
Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX, having been suspended); Bill read 3^a,with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.