172 / 364
the State scheme there will develop the following
effect on the large employers whose risk exposure
is small. The present cost of insurance for Com
mon Law and Workmen's Compensation for say
200 office or shop employees
is approximately
£215. That may be reduced to £100, if at all,
hut in addition that employer will now be re
quired to pay between £750 and £1,000 extra
to the State scheme.
From the point of view of the workman all
State schemes are attended by a number of un
desirable
features. Every
solicitor
in
country
practice knows of the delays by State Departments
in investigating claims under the Social Welfare
Acts. The workman has no remedy for such delay
except to go through the tedious procedure of
the Social Welfare regulations. Payment of sick
benefit is frequently delayed for as long as six
to eight weeks and applicants depend upon the
assistance of shopkeepers and friends.. Under the
Workmen's Compensation Acts which it is pro
posed to repeal an injured workman can speedily
enforce his claim against his employer, if neces
sary, by recourse to his solicitor. In many cases
solicitors have assisted workmen by advancing
payments until the claim is dealt with. Insurance
companies have always been prompt to make
payments in workmen's compensation once
the
cause and nature of the injury is established. The
procedure will be entirely different under the
new code. If there is unreasonable delay by the
State Department in
investigating and dealing
with his claim, the workman will have no remedy
or recourse to any external authority. The human
relations which exist between employees and their
legal advisers will be replaced by the rigid bureau
cratic procedure of a State Department.
One of the principal objections to the State
scheme
is
that matters which heretofore have
been regarded as part of the administration of
justice to be decided coram publico will now be
decided in secret by civil servants. At present,
claims
to workmen's compensation are decided
judicially with skilled legal advice and exposed
to the criticism of public opinion and judicial
comment which is a salutory remedy for oppression
of individual rights. Under the new code a claim
by an injured workman will be investigated in
the first instance by a field officer who will make
private enquiries and listen
to any amount of
hearsay and possibly unreliable evidence. He will
not be trained in the judicial methods applied
in determining the truth between conflicted testi
mony. Mistakes can be covered up without ex
posure. An application by the workmen will go to
a deciding officer; if unfavourable may be referred
to an appeals officer who
is also shielded by
anonymity. An appeal to one state official from
the decision of another where all the deciding
and appellate authorities are trained in the same
code and represent the same interest does not
satisfy the standards of objectivity and fairness
which characterise
the present procedure. Pre
sumably the practice of all State authorities of
refusing to give reasons for their decisions will
apply under the proposed Act.
Under
the present workmen's compensation
code an injured workman may obtain a lump
capital sum which will enable him to set up in
business or rehabitilitate himself in some other
way. There is no provision for a lump sum under
the State scheme and workmen will resort to the
alternative remedy of an action for common law
damages where there has been negligence on the
part of the employer in providing a safe system
of work. The availability of lump sum settlements
and common law rights is an important feature
in medical rehabilitation. It is common knowledge
that the psychological effects of injuries and in
capacity for work continue far longer and very
often from perfectly genuine causes where a lump
sum payment cannot be arranged in a speedy
and satisfactory manner. There are part and
parcel of the workman's compensation code and
the additional difficulties
imposed by the pro
posed legislation in recovering a capital sum may
have the effect of delaying recovery and result in
undesirable social effects both as regards the in
dividual and industry and the community as a
whole.
The Workmen's Compensation Committee by
a majority (which included the representative of
the Department of Industry and Commerce but
not of the Department of Social Welfare) were in
favour of retaining the present Workmen's Com
pensation
scheme
with
improvements.
The
Minister has disregarded the majority report and
given effect to the recommendations of the minor
ity. In all genuine schemes of Social Insurance
the contributions are made by employer, em
ployee and State. Each of the three contributing
parties are also given some control and say over
the administration and over the amounts being
paid out of the fund. In this proposed scheme of
pseudo-social insurance the employer pays all and
the civil servant is given free rein to pay out
what he likes both in administration costs and
claims costs. It is somewhat ineffectively stated
in support of the present Bill that the cost of
66