The Gazette 1964/67

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

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