1.--9 A.

H. N. LIABDET.j

17

business for four or five years, and in England the advice of my directors is this : that the increases in the liabilities in connection with the employers' liability, as it is called at Home, and the decrease in the rates has made it such that there is hardly any profit to be expected in it until some alteration has been made. I suppose we handle the largest amount of business —I believe we are the largest accident company in the world —and so our figures must be relied on. They say there is very little margin of profit, so that it is a question whether it is worth while going on. 13. Are the risks as great in this country in accident assurance as they are in the Old Country?— Yes, the is much more hazardous work out here. 14. But there are greater liabilities in England —the annuity for permanent disablement goes on for ever : there is no limit of time? —That is so. 15. There is here. Can you give the percentage of charges in England?—No, I could not. 16. The most hazardous risk in England, if I remember aright, is about 10 per cent. That is the highest premium paid. What increase did you put on the premiums two years ago? — 10 per cent. 17. Has your company —and, if so, how often —raised the defence that the accident was due to the wilful misconduct of the worker? —On more than one occasion. 18. During how long?— Several times during the last four years. I have known three or four cases, I suppose. 19. How many times have you proved it?— Those cases have never gone into Court: we have always settled them out of Court. 20. So that practically you have never raised that defence in a Court? —No. We never go to Court if we can possibly help it. 21. Now, you spoke about the claim for a joint. Ihere is a finger now [diagram produced]. Do you think it is a fair thing if part of a joint is permanently gone, and the joint is of no earthly use and results in permanent disablement, it should not be paid for? How would you read our Act? —I would not pay for the lower joint. I maintain that the joint left is of great value. 22. That is a case that is going into Court now? —I do not say it is an improvement 23. You say that, so far as your company is concerned, you know of none of your agents having gone into the country where an accident has happened and negotiated and got an agreement signed for the payment of a lump sum much below what your company was liable for? — No, I do not know of anj' agent who would dare do it. As a matter of fact, our agents do not settle claims at all. That is done from the head office. 24. You have never agreed to a settlement effected by your agents at much below what the law provides for? —No. 25. If the man was entitled to £400 you have not paid less? —No, absolutely no. 26. Does the clause referring to the medical fee of £1 affect you to any large extent? —I reckon it will interfere with us, or add to our liability, about £2,000 a year. 27.. Did you not say you keep a medical man in your office? —Yes, but people do not come to our medical man. Accidents take place all over the country. We pay our medical man a retaining fee. He gets half a guinea at the present time for every case examined outside the office. 28. So far as the Wellington office is concerned, this clause is not likely to affect you much, because if you give him £1 per case you will not require to pay him a retaining fee? —We must. We would have no one else. He is one of our staff, and has been with us for years. 29. If he is one of your staff is it necessary to pay him any fees at all?— Yes, he would not be retained if we did not. 30. Mr. Fraser.] Then, your opinion is that the change provided for in section 2 will necessarily increase the premiums by \2\ per cent. ?—Yes, it is. 31. You agree with Mr. Richardson on that point?— Yes, so far as my figures are concerned. We are keeping all the different classes of insurance separate. 32. You did not answer Mr. Millar's question as to what ratio of expense you would have, because it is left now as if there was a profit of £12,100. What portion of that £12,100 would represent profit, approximately? —I understood Mr. Millar to say that was treading on rather delicate ground. I will answer it in this way : that any company would consider themselves very fortunate indeed if they made 10 per cent, profit. 33. Mr. Hardy.] Your predecessor and yourself are not keen on this business? —No. 34. Is it because it is unprofitable?—lt it not profitable. 35. Yet the figures given here show that there is a profit of £12,000, or a balance of £12,000? —Yes, but look at the commission we have to pay and the upkeep of a huge corporation in New Zealand. 36. And it is in consequence of the expenses running away with so much apparent profit that, you are not keen on the business? —Yes; and added to that the Act is amended nearly every three years. 37. Are you really in earnest when you say that your company is not keen on the business? —Yes. 38. And you fear that if there are any more restrictions imposed you might be inclined to do without it?—l will tell you this much :My general manager was out from London last February, and it was questioned then whether or not the New Zealand branch should be closed. 39. There is a general understanding between the companies as to rates, is there not? —Yes. 40. But the New Zealand Government office does not fall in with that? —We are bound by the tariff as to New Zealand, the same as elsewhere. 41. Does that apply to the Government office as well as your own?— Yes. I understand the Government office is not a member of the association, but it always adheres to the tariff. 42. If there is a case of the companies charging too much the Government office is also in it as well as you are? —I suppose so. We have a tariff, and I always adhere to that.

3—l. 9a.