COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS.

Evening Star, Issue 10400, 23 August 1897, Page 1

COMPENSATION FOR ACCIDENTS.

In a recent article we gave a brief sketch of the Workmen’s Compensation Bill introduced in the House of Commons by the Home Secretary with the object of amending the law with respect to compensation to workmen for injuries suffered in the course of their employment. This measure, wo know by cable, has finally passed, and wo note in English papers to hand by late mails that the proceedings in the House of Commons on the consideration of the Bill “ 6n report,” when the question of “ contracting out ” was again raised,, and vefy fully discussed. In regard gcncrally to liability and compensation the Dill is_ much on the lines of the Employers’ Liability Act in force in this Colony ; but, under special circumstanccsdefinedj “contracting ofit ’’ is permitted. If'the registrar of friendly societies certifies that any scheme of compensation is, on the-whole, not less favorable to the workers than the provisions of the Act, the employer is declared to bo at liberty to contract with the workman that the provisions of such scheme should •be substituted. (There is, further, a proviso, that “if the.funds under any “such scheme are not sufficient to meet “the compensation payable under the “scheme the employer shall be liable to “ make good the amount of compensation “which would be payable under this Act.” The object of these words, as stated by Mr Chamberlain, was to secure the workman from the possibility of loss, but they imposed no new liability on the employer; for any contribution he might make to any insurance scheme must iu any case he at least as much as he would have to pay under the Act. On the proviso above quoted a hot debate ensued, the malcontents being members of the Ministerial party, who presumably represented the interests of a class of large employors, and considered that such an enactment would needs be the death knell of “ contracting out.” The amendment to omit the proviso was moved by Mr Wolff, the Conservative member for Belfast and head of the groat shipbuilding firm there, and strongly supported by Mr M‘Lban (Cardiff), who commenced by stating that there had been practically no opportunity of discus--sion previously, since, when the second reading-and committee stages of the Bill were taken, the House was “on pleasure bent”- (the jubilee festivities) and not' able to give proper attention to a novel and complicated measure of this kind. In view of tho great principles involved it was necessary, ho said, to make as clear as possible the intention and probable result of this Bill. The other night the Secretary for tho Colonies, “with that ingenuous air which ho “so well know how to assume,” had asserted that he had a kindly feeling towards such schemes of mutual assurance as wore indicated, and hoped that they would continue and increase. But he (Mr M'Lean) asked what inducement there would be for the employers to enter into them? There was nothing to prevent tho right honorable ■ gentleman some two or three years hence from telling tho House that the workmen ought to pay nothing towards their maintenance during sickness, and proposing to throw the whole burden on tho employers. Ho had, indeed, already said that in his view the contributions of the employers to existing mutual funds was insufficient and ought to bo increased. “ But in what degree ?” _ Mr M‘Lean instanced the South Wales Miners’ Provident Fund, to which £65,000 was subscribed annually, of which the employers contributed £12,500. Mr Chamberlain had declared that the burden placed on tho coal trade by the Bill would not bo 3d a ton. Supposing it was only l|d, that would represent a charge of £IOO,OOO on the coalowners of South Wales. The Miners’ Provident Fund had secured industrial peace for more than twenty years. Tho effect of tho Bill would be to destroy that fund, and bring about disputes between employers and employed, since tho burden upon the employers would make it necessary for them to put some of it on the men. Sir William Harcoort repudiated the assumption by soma members who had spoken in favor of the amendment that the Opposition, in voting against it, would desire in any way to _ discourage friendly societies. He quite believed, he said, that tho words in the clause would to a large extent, if not altogether, prevent contracting out. That was a very clear issue, and he did not believe that there was any answer to the arguments on that point. It was because tho clausa would discourage, if not destroy, tho principle of contracting out, that the Opposition would maintain tho clause as it was, and would oppose the amendment. Speaking of tho debate tho ‘ Daily Graphic ’ says : “ The “‘employers party’ furiously attacked “tho Government,” declaring that this clause would be tho death-blow of “ contracting out ” { that tho manufacturers and mine owners would be ruined ; and that when they had been completely crushed Mr Chamberlain would turn his attention to tho shipowners and landowners. “It was not only an employers’ “revolt, but a personal attack on Mr “ Chamberlain. When towards the close “of the debate the Attorney-General “ rose to speak on behalf of the Govern- “ ment, he was received with contemptuous laughter from this band of “reyolters, whom Mr Burns aptly des- “ cribed os a ‘ reactionary rump.’ In the “division lobby they were less formidable “ than all them shouting betokened, their “amendment being rejected by 278 to “63.” After the very conclusive settlement of this point, a number of amendments and alterations, mainly of a technical character, were made in the Bill, and a brief debate took place on amotion by. Mr H. S. Foster, member for Lowestoft (Suffolk), to include agricultural laborers within the scope of the measure. Receiving’ very little encouragement from his own party, Mr Foster asked leave to withdraw it, but the Radical section of the Opposition objected, desiring, no doubt, to corner the county members by forcing them to record a vote which the agricultural laborers might remember at the next elections. The House divided and rejected the motion by 141 to 90.