The Press FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1972. Compensation Bill

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33034, 29 September 1972, Page 8

The Press FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 1972. Compensation Bill

The Accident Compensation Bill, now before Parliament in its revised form, has made a long, slow, and complicated journey from its origins in the Woodhouse Report. Although the scheme proposed by the Royal Commission under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Woodhouse has been considerably narrowed, two vital principles have been retained: compensation will not depend on proof of negligence and, for the most part, it will be related to lost earnings. The main divergence from the commission’s findings is the narrowing of the scheme’s application to employed and selfemployed persons and to persons injured in motor accidents. In its revision of the bill the Parliamenttary committee envisages the eventual extension of accident compensation to all persons. The abridgements notwithstanding, this bill must still be regarded as a notable advance in legislation for social welfare.

The main objection to the bill as it now stands is that it asserts a principle of community responsibility for the welfare of persons injured in accidents but fails to translate that principle fully into practice. It thereby perpetuates the anomalies that inspired the Woodhouse recommendation of a universal compensation scheme. Furthermore, when this legislation goes into effect, the anomalies in compensation that used to be taken for granted will become much more conspicuous. At least the anomalies should be fewer; and the earner’s scheme assures breadwinners of compensation for lost earnings, thus ensuring the security of their families.

Employers will have to pay ordinary wages or salary to employees injured in the course of their work for the first week of incapacity. A high proportion of accidents involve absence from work for a week or less. It is not unreasonable to exclude from the scheme cover for minor accidents; and the arrangement should be an incentive to employers to adopt the best safety measures available, thus reducing the incidence of more serious injuries. As the earner’s scheme should discourage dangerous practices and habits at work, so should the motor vehicle accident scheme enliven interest in measures to reduce injuries on the roads—and secure more general acceptance of these measures. Community responsibility for repairing the results of motor accidents implies community action to minimise the causes of injury. Although compensation will be available regardless of fault, neglect of one’s own safety on the roads, as well as of others’ safety, becomes more clearly a matter of community concern once a compulsory, universal insurance scheme is introduced. The motorist might have to accept a greater measure of discipline aimed at ensuring his personal safety, just as an employee is already expected to abide by rules for his own safety at work. The universal wearing of seat belts is an obvious step in this direction.