THE INJURED WORKMAN
Workmen's Compensation. Vol. 1. Social and Political Development. By Sir Arnold Wilson, M.P., and Professor Hermann Levy. (Oxford University Press. vas.)
As long ago as 188o Mr. Gladstone carried through Parlia- ment the Employers' Liability Act, which represented the first legislative attempt to compensate the workman for injuries received in the course of his 'employment. The original Workmen's Compensation Act was passed three years before the present century began. Since then the whole subject has been thoroughly investigated by Departmental Committees both before and after the War. There have been no fewer than twelve amending statutes, to say nothing of a constant suc- cession of abortive private Members' Bills. Yet it is safe to say that no one is satisfied with the present system. Four debates have taken place during the lifetime of the present Parliament. On each occasion nearly all the speakers have been severely critical of the existing state of the law. A Royal Commission has now been set up to investigate facts which are Sufficiently well known already.
Why is it that so great a lapse of time and so heavy an expenditure of Parliamentary energy should have failed to produce a more satisfactory result? Why is it, indeed, that after fifty-nine years of inquiry and experiment we should compare unfavourably in this respect with almost all Conti- nental countries? To these questions Sir Arnold Wilson and Professor Hermann Levy have sought to provide an answer. Their first volume purports only to deal with the history of Workmen's Compensation Law, but the recommendations which they will make in Volume II are already tolerably. clear. Our legislation, they believe, has proceeded on a wrong principle. Instead of making Compensation for industrial accidents a part of our social services, we have contented our- selves with laying a statutory liability upon industrialists, leaving the workman to enforce his rights as best he can against his employer, or, more frequently, the insurance com- pany. The companies scramble for business. Over-competition in an over-crowded market increases overhead costs. Conse- quently little more than 6o per cent. of the amount paid in premiums finds its way into the pockets of those for whose benefit the Acts were designed. The advocates of a State system, who believe that thereby the scale of payments would be raised without imposing a substantially greater burden upon industry, will find much material in this book. Unfortunately, no one has yet worked out the cost of an alternative method. This is a calculation to which no clout* Sir Arnold Wilson and Professor Levy will address themselves in their next' instal- ment.
Apart from this fundamental issue, there are other urgent problems familiar to all those who have to do with Workmen's Compensation. They are admirably dealt with in this volume. In particular, a great deal of information has been collected on the subject of compulsory insurance. Except in the coal- mining industry, employers are under no statutory obligation to insure. It frequently happens that workmen or, in fatal cases, their dependants, are deprived of their rights under the Acts by the insolvency of the firm for which they have worked. The Holman Gregory Commission in 1920 arrived at the con- clusion that "it is necessary for the protection of workmen, and not contrary to the interests of the employers themselves, that those who are unable safely to carry the risk should be compelled to insure." The Home Secretary of the day re- fused to embody this recommendation in the Act of 1923 on the ground that either employer would thereby be placed at the mercy of insurance companies, or there would need to be some measure of State control over private insurance business. This decision was taken, not as Sir Arnold Wilson seems to think, by the Coalition Government, but by the Administra- tion which followed it. The responsibility must be shared by succeeding Governments, all of whom have neglected to legislate on this subject, and have thus perpetuated an in- defensible state of affairs. Every motorist is compelled to insure against third-party risks. The injured workman has no less need of protection than the injured pedestrian.
The authors have done their work with amazing thorough-
ness. They have searched through the evidence given before the successive inquiries, summarised the outstanding Parlia- mentary debates, and even tabulated the unsuccessful amend- ments proposed in Committee. It is difficult to recall any occasion when the development of a -form of social legisla-
tion has been traced with such scrupulous care. One is left with the reflection that a great burden of responsibility rests upon those who initiate a new departure. Once they have adopted certain principles, the draftsmen of later generations are reluctant to start again at the beginning. It is so much easier to build on the foundations already established. Ever since Mr. Joseph Chamberlain carried the first Worlunen's Compensation Act, reformers have contented themselves with occasional adaptations and improvements of the structure which he dien erected.
Sir Arnold Wilson himself contributes a preface containi,', a general survey of the growth of provision for compensation. Since this book is designed in part for laymen, it is to be re- gretted that he did not refer more fully to the position of the workman who is injured by reason of his employer's negli- gence or breach of statutory duty. As the law now stands, a claimant must elect between bringing an action or applying for compensation. If he accepts payments under the Workmen's Compensation Acts he forfeits his right to sue for damages. In most cases, of course, the sum recoverable by the latter method will be very much the larger. It nct infrequently happens that a workman takes what is offered by way a compensation without having obtained legal advice, and possibly without appreciating the extent of his rights under the common law.
The authors conclude with the statement that "those who regard the Parliamentary system as the best machinery for remedying social evils will be the first to admit that in the matter of Workmen's Compensation it has failed." In a sense this comment is not unfair. But it might with advantage be amplified. The fault has not been- with Parliament itself," for the impetus to reform has not been lacking in the House of Commons. Private members, however, have only restricted opportunities of legislation, and it is not easy for them to initiate and carry through complicated and far-reaching measures. The real resistance has come not from the legis- lature, but from the executive. The demand for change often begins on the back benches. It is rarely effective unless Ministers can be prevailed upon to shape and introduce the new measures required. The present unsatisfactory state of compensation law is a reproach to all the Governments which halm held office since the War. DINGLE FOOT.
Previous page
