Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 May 1929

Vol. 30 No. 4

Private Deputies' Business. - Workmen's Compensation (Increase of Compensation) Bill, 1929—Report Stage.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. McGilligan)

I would like to make a suggestion to the two Deputies who are interested in this Bill and who have brought it forward, and to the House in general. It is, that the motion which is now before the House should not be proceeded with; that the Bill should not be proceeded with in its present form to-night but that an opportunity should be given to have a further examination of certain details which have come to light since the Bill made its first appearance. This Bill is to a certain extent founded upon the Report of a Departmental Committee set up to consider the question of workmen's compensation.

Speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill, I indicated that I had in my Department legislation almost ready to carry out most of the recommendations of the Special Committee. For that reason, I said that I was not merely not going to have any opposition offered to the passage of this Bill, this preliminary measure, but that the Bill was going to be favoured by me. The Report of the Departmental Committee, notably in paragraph 3, stated that some of the results had to be regarded as definitely provisional because at the time certain statistics were not available. These were statistics which were considered necessary for the proper understanding of this question and for a proper decision upon it. In paragraph 3 the Committee say: "Matters such as the total cost of compensation; the numbers of employers concerned; the persons receiving payment; the effect of the waiting period on the cost, and other subjects for the proper appreciation of which statistics are essential have consequently been dealt with only on a provisional basis."

Since this Bill was sent to a Special Committee, or rather since it was reported there has appeared a pamphlet compiled by my Department entitled "Statistics of Workmen's Compensation, 1927." It contains a certain amount of matter which the Committee had not before them and about the absence of which they complained previously. There are certain figures in this pamphlet which are startling enough and require further examination, so that one can get not merely a provisional but a final decision on the total cost of compensation. In the statistical return on page 10, dealing with the total compensation paid in Saorstát Eireann, a final figure is shown as to the charge per person employed here and in Great Britain; it comes to 21/5 as the charge per person employed here for compensation whereas the figure in Great Britain is 17/1.

A more startling figure is shown in page 11, where it states that the average compensation per case paid in the Free State in 1927 was almost £21, whereas in the case of Great Britain it was £13 1s. In page 13 there is the final item, which I would like to have the Committee consider. I take two special types of work. There is constructional work and building; and harbour docks, wharves and quays. An earlier item will show that constructional work and building covers by far the bigger section of workmen that falls within the terms of the Workmen's Compensation Act. Now, the number of cases per 1,000 employees of the non-fatal type in 1927 in the Free State was 138.4, whereas in Great Britain it was 68.2. In the second section the total number of non-fatal cases was, in the Free State, 132.6 and in Great Britain simply 86.

Now, these figures in themselves require further consideration. I think I already intimated that this Bill has been founded upon the Report of the Workmen's Compensation Commission, and it is therein disclosed that the result is only provisional, because at the time certain statistical information was not available. That statistical information is in some parts now ready, and it is only right that the Committee should have this Bill referred again to them for examination. There is one explanation that stands out about all these figures—the big disparity between the Free State and Great Britain—and that is the question of the Shannon Scheme, where undoubtedly there has been either malingering to an excessive degree —which is my own opinion—or else a very big number of cases of the non-fatal type occurring. That operates both to raise the number of accidents and therefore to raise the number of cases per 1,000 employees and also to raise the average cost. Because taking the one year, 1927, the amount of compensation paid during that year arising out of the Shannon Scheme accidents came to £15,000. There were 1,249 people concerned. Seven of these cases were fatal and the compensation paid amounted to £1,000. The rest, disablement cases carried forward from the previous year, or in which the first payment was made in 1927, amounted to something like £14,000 compensation being paid.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.

Mr. McGilligan

The fatal cases in 1927 were seven and £1,000 was the compensation paid. The average for constructional and building accident cases for 1927 was 52/6 per person; for the Shannon Scheme workers alone the average was 83/10 per person employed.

It is quite clear the impact of the Shannon Scheme is a thing that has to be taken by itself. Nevertheless, subtracting these figures and admitting there have been a big number of accidents either in connection with the scheme or a very big amount of malingering or something that lies between these—slight accidents being passed as serious and compensation being raised, that being easy enough in the absence of any proper medical inspector, inasmuch as the German insurance firm was bearing the burden of the insurance in this case—there is still a sufficient case to request the Dáil not to proceed with the Bill, or to increase the amount of compensation which it would give. I do not know what time it will take to have that Committee called together. Unfortunately, one death occurred amongst the personnel of the old Committee. That gentleman was more or less nominated by a particular insurance company and another nominee can be got quite soon. The rest of the Committee are here and can be called on short notice.

I propose, with the leave of the House, and with the leave of the proposer and seconder, to call the Committee immediately, to place before the Committee any statistical matter that I have, and to send before them any people who may be considered fit to give evidence on the tabulated information. Thereafter I will come before the Dáil with the amended report, or the report as it originally existed, stood over by the Committee. It should be possible to have this done in sufficient time to enable the Bill to run its full course before this session ends. I cannot promise that absolutely, because it will depend upon the attitude of the Committee towards the new information. A lot will depend also on whether they consider it up to them to give something more than mere approval of the particular rates set out in this new information, or whether they might want to go more deeply into evidence and other statistical information that I could give them.

There is another matter to which I would like to draw the attention of the Dáil. Statements have been made with regard to agreements reached with insurance companies that rates would not be raised on account of the passage either of this Bill or the larger measure which would have to be founded on the main report. Conflicting statements have been made to me about it. I am told it is quite easy for insurance companies to say rates will not be raised in consequence of the Bill being passed, for the simple reason that rates have been raised in anticipation of the passing of the Bill. If that is so, I have been given statistics informing me that whereas the rates in Northern Ireland and Great Britain are somewhere about ten per cent. of an increase on 1914 rates, in the Saorstát there is, at present, over 33 per cent. of an increase on the 1914 rates. It is quite clear there is an appreciable extra burden borne by industry here not borne by the two competing countries. That situation with regard to insurance premiums, and the extra amount that may be required to meet the increase would have to be further inquired into, and I propose to ask the Departmental Committee to get that matter further looked into.

Allegations have been made about the raising of insurance rates, and these alone would constitute a prima facie case for having this matter referred back. I promise to expedite the meeting of the Committee and their deliberations. I will see about getting a judgment reached speedily. I do not know the form this should necessarily take. I suppose the best way would be to request the discharge of the Bill from the Order Paper to-day, and have it set down for consideration in a month or six weeks. It could be brought forward when the Committee's Report comes. That is the type of suggestion I would like to make to the House.

Mr. Rice

As the Minister for Industry and Commerce has indicated, the Bill was an attempt to give legislative effect as early as possible to the main recommendations of the Departmental Committee which reported on the question of workmen's compensation in 1926. Some of these recommendations were passed, undoubtedly, on imperfect knowledge. They were provisional, and I think it is reasonable that an opportunity should be given to have the figures finally examined by the Committee. I should like to have a definite basis for recommendation, rather than a provisional basis. In those circumstances I am agreeable to the proposal that this matter should be adjourned for a month or six weeks.

Mr. O'Kelly

In view of the importance of the statement made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the new statistics that have been furnished by his Department, I agree with him it would be wise that this matter should be sent back to the Committee for further consideration. It is a pity that the statistics now furnished were not in the hands of the Committee at an earlier stage. This matter has gone a very considerable length and a good deal of time has been devoted to it by members of the House and others. It is unfortunate that important statistical information of that kind only comes at such a late hour. Whether the Department of Statistics was or was not responsible I do not know. In my opinion, it is strange that certain important information was not available at an earlier stage. However, now that it has come to hand, it certainly would be unwise for any Committee dealing with the matter to ignore the information that has been got.

I could not attempt to follow or discuss at this moment the figures read out by the Minister. One would have to get time to look over those figures and to examine them carefully before discussing the important matters raised in them. It does seem strange, at first sight, that the average payment should be so much higher here than in the Northern Counties or in Great Britain. But then possibly the scarcity of population here may have something to do with that, and probably the greater part of the explanation will be found there.

The Minister has referred to the number of cases that have occurred in connection with the Shannon scheme. As to fatal cases, we all know that there have been a big number, too great a number in my opinion. Not knowing anything about the internal working of the scheme or the engineering arrangements, but as an ordinary citizen who observes very frequently the number of fatal accidents that occur in connection with the Shannon Scheme, it would seem to me that there is very little thought given to human life. Something more ought to be done and something more could be done to prevent the enormous number of fatal accidents there. Since the inauguration of that scheme a big number of fatal accidents have occurred. Somebody said to me recently when discussing this matter that perhaps our workmen here were not as used to dealing with the highly technical matters that they are up against in the Shannon scheme as the workmen in other countries would be. I said to the friend who offered that explanation that it was not sufficient justification for what appeared on the surface to be a want of proper care with a view to preventing fatal accidents.

I repeat that a very large number of fatal accidents have occurred directly from the scheme. I am not talking now of accidents that have occurred outside the Shannon scheme area proper. Some of those accidents were due to the negligence of the persons concerned. But on the scheme proper there have been very many more accidents than there might have been had proper precautions been taken. I do not know anything about the evidence on which the Minister claims that there has been great malingering. If there is any foundation for that, the blame should certainly lie, I take it, to a large extent, on the directors. Usually with huge undertakings of that kind the directors would employ medical men of their own who would see that there would not be malingering and whose duty it would be to examine the cases of the men who were reported sick.

I know that doctors sometimes are soft-hearted, and if a doctor was in the pay of a contractor I think he would be there to earn his money, and, if he did not earn it, he would not be kept. Before saying anything further I will wait to see what evidence the Minister has. I think, however, that a reflection has been cast on our workmen and that we should not allow it to go unchallenged. We are satisfied that the best method would be to adopt the suggestion of the Minister to refer the matter back to the Committee for reconsideration.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

I have no objection to this Bill being referred back. While I appreciate in every way the efforts of Deputy Rice to bring in a Bill and to get a speedy decision on this question, I am inclined to think that it would be better to get a more comprehensive Bill from the Minister and to put it into operation on the basis of the Report of the Committee. The Minister has promised to call his Committee together as soon as possible, but I regret very much that, while he has promised to call the Committee together to investigate the new statistics that have come to his notice, he did not wait for the findings of the Committee rather than prejudice them, as he did, by his statement. I desire to protest strongly against the attitude which the Minister took up in referring to these statistics. He proceeded to draw conclusions from them. I do not know what measure of examination he has given to them. I do not know if he has considered them closely, but he immediately drew conclusions from them. He states that it is his opinion that there has been a considerable amount of malingering. I suggest that it was not proper for him to express an opinion on these figures unless he examined them fully and was prepared to stand over them and explain them. It was not right that a charge of that kind should be made in the terms of the Minister's statement. He states that there has been a considerable amount of malingering in connection with the Shannon scheme and that, of course, that was because there is a German insurance company involved. That is a slur not alone on our people engaged on the Shannon scheme, but on the nation as a whole—that we are that class of people that will take advantage of the fact that it is a foreign insurance company that is going to pay and that there would not be so much malingering if it was an Irish company.

I am surprised that the Minister for External Affairs should be the Minister to make a charge of that kind. I desire to enter a most emphatic protest against it. We will wait for the Committee's report to hear what conclusions are to be drawn from these figures. I could, for instance, say at the beginning, if I saw that there were 134 non-fatal accidents in the Saorstát as against 68 in Great Britain, that that of necessity must be due to want of care on the part of the contractor. I am not saying that, because I do not know that it is the case. I do not want to draw any conclusion from these figures, but that is a conclusion which I might draw from them superficially, as the Minister appears to have done. I think it is altogether improper for the Minister to prejudice the possible findings of the Committee by stating that it is his opinion that there has been malingering, especially in connection with the Shannon scheme, because a foreign insurance company is involved. That is not worthy of any Minister, especially a Minister whose duty it should be to uphold the honour of the nation amongst other nations.

Mr. Rice

Arising out of what Deputy O'Connell has said, I desire to ask a question. I should be glad to know if Deputy O'Connell, as the Leader of the Labour Party, wants the House to take his suggestion seriously that it would be better to leave the Bill stand. Does he suggest that I should withdraw it and wait for a more comprehensive Bill from the Minister because, if he does, I am prepared to agree?

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

We have not been able to get a promise from the Minister.

Mr. McGilligan

Not this session.

Mr. T.J. O'Connell

Without giving the matter much consideration, I would be prepared to say that if we are not going to get any Bill from the Minister this session we would prefer to have Deputy Rice's Bill. I suggest that the Deputy would agree to adjourning the matter for the time being.

Mr. Rice

I have agreed to that already.

Mr. Colohan

The Minister has told us that the insurance rates have increased 33 per cent. in the Saorstát since 1914 compared with a ten per cent. increase in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Mr. McGilligan

That is the allegation. I do not stand over it.

Mr. Colohan

If that is so, it is a charge with which industry in this country should not be burdened. When the Minister asks the Committee to revise the report and to consider the information which is now contained in the Departmental leaflet, I would ask him to get the Committee to consider the facts which were set out when the Workmen's Compensation Bill was going through the British House of Commons in, I think, 1925. It was stated at that time that out of every three pounds subscribed to the insurance companies they only paid back one pound in benefit to disabled workers. The Under-Secretary who was in charge of the Bill said that they would look into that matter. If insurance companies can make two pounds' profit out of every three pounds subscribed there must be something wrong. If that is so in Great Britain it must be much more so in this country, and I would like the Committee to take into consideration the excessive charges of insurance companies, because that is a burden which we should not be called upon to bear. If we have to bear it I do not see why the benefits to disabled workers should be reduced. In speaking about malingering before, I stated that we did not stand for malingering but that there are cases which might look like malingering and that when a man gets back almost to normal health he is often not able to work. In such cases there should be leniency shown, as you would not call it malingering if it took a man a week or two longer to recuperate fully. In the case of a man who becomes disabled as a result, for instance, of building operations, it is hard to get him back to his full strength, and if you put him back before he is fully recovered the employers do not want him as they always want their pound of flesh in regard to any man they employ. As I say, I would like the Minister to ask the Committee to consider whether the insurance companies are charging excessive rates.

Mr. Briscoe

When the Minister suggested that the cause of the rates being higher in the Free State than in other places was, in his opinion, malingering to a certain extent, I came to the conclusion that the Minister was giving his opinion based on information which he might, or should, have in his Department and that there was some evidence at least entitling him to make that statement. I am not prepared to believe that the Minister would make that suggestion of his own free will. I take a serious view of his statement, and I do not think that to ask him to withdraw it would lessen the importance of the point to which I wish to refer.

If the Committee, in considering this, are to take into consideration the serious indication from the Minister or his Department to the effect that these figures in the Free State would be higher than elsewhere because of the fact that there had been malingering, it may to a certain extent interfere with the final fixing of rates by the Committee. It would be senseless to suggest that these cases which have already occurred ought to be reviewed, because we know that most of the cases would be out of the hands of the inspector. I would like to hear from the Minister rather more than a suggestion that there has been malingering, that the Committee will consider all the facts and figures, and that there is going to be no discounting, without positive proof, to bring about any reduction in the rates agreed upon for this country arising out of any suggestion that there has been malingering unless it can be proved. The Minister suggested that the malingering might be accentuated owing to the fact that the contractors gave the insurance to a German insurance firm and that that company might not be able to examine cases as well as a local company. I would like to refute that, because any insurance company of any consequence or standing, particularly one such as is connected with the Shannon scheme, would have an assessor available at all times, more especially where there would be such a large amount of insurance work as exists on the Shannon scheme.

The Minister has not stated whether all the figures referred to non-fatal cases amongst Irish workers on the Shannon scheme or whether they embodied cases of German workers. It might not make much difference, but it would be very easy for the Committee to arrive at their conclusion from two sets of figures—one concerning employees as a whole, having no connection with the Shannon scheme, and another in connection with the Shannon scheme. After all, the Shannon scheme, judging by the amount paid to the contractors, must be nearing completion from the civil engineering point of view, and it would be very easy for the Department to come to a conclusion based on some figures concerning individuals engaged on domestic work having no connection with the Shannon scheme.

Mr. Ruttledge

I wish to refer to a matter which I raised here before and to ask the Minister whether there is any possibility of having a convention arrived at between this country and England in regard to insurance matters. As I pointed out before, this is a very serious matter for this country, especially for western counties, from which a large number of migratory labourers travel each year to England. When these people get hurt they are faced with the position that the insurance companies will not pay any attention to their claims unless they go over to England. The Minister is aware that that is a source of great hardship to very many people in poor circumstances in this country. Such a convention does exist between France and England and between England and other countries.

Mr. McGilligan

Might I, with the leave of the House, mention a definite date for the Bill? I suggest that in the first instance it might be put down for the 26th June. That would allow four weeks for the matter to be brought before the Committee. If their report is not ready then it can be put back again. Might I be permitted to say a word or two further, as this is not an ordinary motion I am moving?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Yes, with the leave of the House.

Mr. McGilligan

There has been a misunderstanding in regard to my statement about malingering due to the fact that there is a foreign company concerned. I am not suggesting, although I do not think there is any great scandal in suggesting, that people in this country would possibly be more disposed to draw money from a foreign company than from a native firm. I never made the suggestion that that was the reason. My suggestion was that because the foreign firm had not inspectors on the spot it is easier for cases to be registered. Malingering is undoubtedly there. I say again that the reason for it is not because people are keen on drawing from a foreign company, but foreign companies are easier marks because they have not inspectors on the spot. One of the reasons why that statement can be made is this. As far as fatal accidents are concerned, I claim that the proportion is much smaller than on any other scheme of similar size in any other country despite what Deputy O'Kelly said. Most of the fatal accidents on the Shannon scheme have occurred, not in connection with the scheme itself directly, but in connection with such work as unloading materials from ships carrying Shannon material, amongst men working for the contractors. There have been one or two accidents arising out of some of the machines which transport earth closing on people, and there have been one or two caused by a train overturning. I think there were three fatal cases arising out of that. There were two cases of electrocution, but the majority of the cases have not directly arisen out of the scheme. I should say that the percentage of mortality amongst German workers is greater than the percentage of mortality amongst Irish workers. I could give reasons but I do not know that I need go further to support my statements with regard to malingering. The report of the Statistical Department implies, and I think it is the natural thing, that the lower the wage in any occupation the greater the temptation to malingering.

Mr. Cassidy

Has the Minister any medical opinion to substantiate his statement?

Mr. McGilligan

Yes, I have, definitely and clearly.

Mr. Cassidy

If there is medical opinion to substantiate that statement does the Minister still contend that benfits are being paid?

Mr. McGilligan

Yes, I do, definitely and clearly. That is the reason I made the statement.

Mr. Corish

Does the medical opinion represent the view of the insurance company?

Mr. McGilligan

No. One of the reasons it happens is that the insurance company had not an assessor on the spot. To get back to the point I was discussing, the nearer the compensation gets to wage earned the greater the temptation is. In agricultural occupations there is much more malingering than in industrial occupations. On the Shannon scheme there was undoubtedly that temptation. Also, I would say this, that whereas the percentage of fatal accidents on the scheme is much lower than in any scheme of similar size in any country, the number of non-fatal cases is far and away ahead of anything that has happened in any other country. Again, in very few of the fatal cases that came before a jury has there been any condemnation of the contractors. There was, I think, in one case. I doubt if the contractors can be blamed, as very few accidents occurred on the scheme. The statistics were prepared in a very elaborate fashion. When one considers that I have been pressed to exclude many matters from the statistics in order to get out the census of production one gets an explanation as to why this appears somewhat late.

Mr. O'Connell

There is one Labour representative on the Committee, Mr. Mortished, who will not be available before the 20th June.

Mr. McGilligan

We might get a substitute for Mr. Mortished. That is a matter I will discuss with the Party he represents.

Order discharged.

Bill ordered to be taken on 26th June.