Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 1 Mar 1929

Vol. 28 No. 6

Senators' Allowances. - Workmen's Compensation (Increase of Compensation) Bill, 1929—Second Stage.

Mr. Rice

I beg to move "That the Bill be now read a Second Time." This is a Bill to increase the compensation payable to workmen in cases of accident. To put briefly the principle of the Bill: it proposes to increase the amount of compensation (1) in cases of fatal accident and (2) in cases of non-fatal accident. The existing law is settled by the Act of 1906. Under that Act, in the case of a workman meeting with a fatal accident in the course of his employment and leaving dependents, the minimum sum payable for compensation is £150 and the maximum sum £300. This Bill proposes that the £150 minimum should be increased to £200, and the £300 maximum to £600. Apart from the fact that that change has already been made elsewhere, it will be obvious that it is a change which should be made in our law, because if that scale was an appropriate scale for compensation in 1906, it is clearly an unsuitable scale at the present day. Many Deputies no doubt will have had experience of cases where a workman was killed in the course of his employment leaving a number of young children, and the scale now in force is equivalent to giving the dependents, no matter how numerous they are, an allowance of only £15 per year, because I call £300 an allowance of £15 per year. Cases have come within my experience in another capacity where a man has been killed in the course of his employment leaving a number of young children. For instance, I have known of a case where a workman was killed and left a widow and four young children from seven to one-and-a-half years of age. That workman was giving £3 per week to his wife for the support of himself and his wife and four children. Even if you assume that half that £3 went for his own exclusive benefit, there was still 30/- per week for the benefit of his wife and children. Under the law as it stands, £300 is the maximum compensation which can be granted in such a case, and instead of 30/- per week for the widow and for the children until they come to the age of 15, when they would be able to earn their own living, there is a total sum of £15 per year. I say that that is inequitable and that the law should be brought into conformity with modern ideas.

Under the head of incapacity, this divides itself into two branches— there is total incapacity and partial incapacity. In 1917, an Act called the War Addition Act was passed. It was a temporary measure, intended only to operate until the end of the war and six months afterwards. There was a further War Addition Act passed in 1919, which was also a temporary measure, but which has been kept in existence. The effect of these Acts was to increase the amount of compensation payable in cases of total incapacity, the second Act increasing the amount which would be given in the case of total incapacity by 75 per cent. That Act is in force in this country at present. What this Bill proposes to do is to stabilise the increases given under that Act. There will not be any real increase, except in one respect, which I will mention. There is not any real increase in the amount of compensation proposed to be given by this Bill in cases of total incapacity. It proposes to stabilise the increase given. But, as I say, in one respect there is a difference. We have in this country at present a maximum sum, apart from the advances given by the War Addition Act. We have a maximum weekly payment allowed to workmen incapacitated of 20/-, and the effect of the War Addition Act is really to bring that up by 75 per cent. and increase it to 35/-. In another country they have a total weekly maximum of 30/-. It is proposed in this Bill to make it 35/-. The reason for that is, and it was one of the reasons which operated on the minds of the Departmental Committee which the Minister for Industry and Commerce set up, that in this country the workers have not certain advantages that workers have in England—they have not the medical benefits that the workers in England have. The Committee made an unanimous recommendation that the maximum sum here should be 35/- per week, so as to make up for the loss that our workers suffer by reason of having no medical benefits as compared with workers in other countries. That is, as regards war additions. With regard to the cases of total incapacity, the Bill only proposes to stabilise what is in existence already under the temporary Acts, which it is proposed, if the House accepts the Bill, to be repealed. The other head is partial incapacity, and it is proposed to put the working people in a better condition than at present in cases of partial incapacity. That was dealt with specifically in the report of the Departmental Committee to which I have referred. There were on that Committee representatives of labour, and four members of the Committee were employers' representatives. There was an unanimous recommendation by the Committee, and all this Bill proposes to do is to put in operation the unanimous recommendation of the Committee as regards cases of partial incapacity. In a word, the Bill proposes to put in force, as regards these limited matters—compensation on death and compensation in non-fatal cases—the unanimous recommendation of the Committee set up by the Minister.

Mr. Gearoid O'Sullivan

I beg formally to second the motion. I reserve my right to speak later on.

Mr. Anthony

While I wish to welcome this Bill, at the same time I recognise that it may be looked upon as only piecemeal legislation. Undoubtedly Deputy Rice has made a serious and honest attempt to deal with a phase of our industrial life which has from time to time been attempted to be met where the widows and children are bereft of their breadwinners and left with no other provision than that made by the Workmen's Compensation Act. Now, while I use the term "piecemeal" I do not want to reflect in any way on the effort made by Deputy Rice to do something to improve existing legislation in this regard, and to endeavour to make provision to carry out at least some of the recommendations of the Committee set up by the Minister, and before which I myself was examined.

While I agree that this would be a useful and acceptable contribution to the already existing Workmen's Compensation Act, at the same time I suggest that we should not lose sight of the other recommendations made by that Committee. I have not the Report before me, neither have I had access to it, but there is a phase of the whole question which I want Deputy Rice to consider at a later stage. Under the Act there is a minimum and a maximum amount fixed by way of compensation. I speak under correction, but I think that during the deliberations of the Committee set up to deal with the matter, a sort of sliding scale of compensation was suggested under which it was indicated that the widow left without children should receive a minimum amount of compensation, and a certain scale was specified. To illustrate my point. I may not be correct, as far as the figures are concerned, but they will be approximate figures. Amongst a number of suggestions made was one to this effect. A widow say from 20 to 25 years of age who had no children should receive less than a widow of from 25 to 30 years of age who had no children. The former should receive from £75 to £100 and the latter from £100 to £150, and a widow of from 35 to 40 years of age should receive from £150 to £200. The meaning or intention there was that it would place no further burden on either of the contributors to the scheme, workmen or employers, but that we should be able to preserve, all the time, in the operation of the Act, what appeared to be one of the most useful provisions, namely, to maintain £1 plus 75 per cent., or 35s. weekly to the injured worker.

Now, I understand that a very decent attempt was made by the Committee so to balance matters that they suggested that 35s. should be maintained while a workman was unfit to follow his regular occupation, and that the maximum and the minimum should be increased by way of providing for the widows and orphans of deceased workers—that is, those people who come in under the operations of the Act. The continued inclusion in the Act of the 35s. to the injured workman is one of the things I think Deputy Rice has not lost sight of. In fact he indicated in his speech that he did not want to drop what, to working people, is an absolutely essential portion of the whole arrangement.

It must be, of course, very manifest that there is a big difference between a young widow without dependents and a widow of fifty or sixty years of age without dependents. There is no need for me to indicate what should be perfectly obvious, that a woman of twenty-five or thirty years of age stands a better chance of re-marriage than a woman of from fifty to sixty years of age, and, consequently, in any legislation which might pass this House, we should not lose sight of the fact, that there are certain features in the present Act which we should like to see continued and preserved. At the same time, as mentioned by Deputy Rice, we must remember that legislation passed in 1906 is not adequate, and should not be considered adequate in 1929. We all know the economic change brought about by the Great War, resulting in the higher cost of living. For that reason I welcome this Bill. I commend it to the consideration of the House, and so far as our party is concerned, we look upon it as a decent effort, and we appreciate the endeavour of Deputy Rice to do something to make our legislation a little more attractive, and to bring it more into line with social legislation in other countries. It seems to me, at any rate, an indication that other Deputies are becoming a little more responsive to the movement towards betterment of the workers and humanitarianism in general. For these reasons I have pleasure in supporting the introduction of this Bill.

Mr. Fahy

It is not, of course, possible to provide legislation against all and every contingency. There is this one possible case to which I should like to draw the attention of Deputy Rice to see whether provision has been made in such a case. To the best of my recollection application has to be made, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, within six months of an accident. It is not likely, but there is a possibility of a posthumous child subsequent to that date. What provision is made for the maintenance of such a child, if any, in this Bill?

Mr. Cassidy

In connection with this question of workmen's compensation, this House decided to set up a Committee of Inquiry into the whole question as far back as May, 1925. That Committee went very fully into the whole question, and presented its Report on the 31st July, 1926. That Report was unanimous; and notwithstanding the fact that repeated efforts were made to get the Minister to introduce legislation along the lines outlined in this unanimous Report, no action was taken by the Executive Council or by the Minister. The House is now asked to decide this matter in a Bill dealing with a small fraction of a complicated question; and I would like to point out to the House that we have had only twenty-four hours' notice of what is really contained in the Bill. And although Deputies were only presented with the Bill yesterday morning, we received no explanatory memorandum, which one would expect to come from the Minister accompanying a very complicated matter of this description.

The British system of compensation which we inherited is very defective in many ways, more especially in comparison with the system in operation in the Province of Ontario, and other provinces of Canada. As far as the Departmental Committee was concerned, it received evidence from employers, workers' representatives and judges as to the deficiencies in the present system. But the Committee felt itself unable to deal with the big issues, such as compulsory insurance and complete remodelling of the system because of the lack of exact data. The Committee recommended that after three years' experience of the amended legislation, and the collection of the necessary data, further inquiry into the whole system should be undertaken.

That period of three years has practically elapsed, but owing to the fact that no legislation was introduced by the Minister along the lines suggested in the recommendations of the Committee, I suppose that the proposed further inquiry is as far, if no further, off. Owing to the lack of data the Committee had to confine itself to endeavouring to make suggestions so as to improve the present system. At that Departmental Committee we find that the employers were opposed to any change which would mean increased charges to them. It should be borne in mind, as apparently it was not by the employers who gave evidence before the Committee, that the whole insurance contributions paid by employers in Britain and the Six Counties are on a much higher level than those paid in the Free State, and that, consequently, employers in the Free State have that advantage, at any rate, over employers in the Six Counties and Great Britain. In Great Britain and the Six Counties the legislation which was enacted in 1923 reduced the amount of compensation payable in the case of nonfatal accidents from a maximum of 35/- to 30/- weekly, and I fear that there may be a tendency at present to endeavour on the part of, at least, a few members of this House to get the compensation reduced so far as this Bill is concerned. Personally, I am against any reduction, because I believe that when a worker meets with an accident he has additional expenses to meet, and consequently I believe that he should not be put in a position worse than that in which he is at present.

The members of the Committee were against any reduction being made so far as the 35/- maximum was concerned, and in order to maintain that maximum and at the same time avoid the imposition of heavier charges on employers, the Committee revised with great trouble the whole series of adjustments in regard to compensation. The changes proposed were inter-departmental. This Bill completely upsets the balance which the Committee devised so carefully by adopting one recommendation in regard to weekly payments, but ignoring the other recommendation in the case of death and adopting instead the recent British legislation in regard to compensation in the event of death. The proposals in the Bill before the House are somewhat better than the British legislation, but at the same time I do not think that it will be gainsaid by anyone who read the recommendations of the Committee that the Bill does not go as far and is not as good from the workers' point of view as the recommendations contained in the Committee's report. The fear has been expressed in some quarters that if we retain the thirty-five shilling maximum it will mean heavier insurance premiums, even if Deputy Rice got certain assurances from the insurance companies that this will not be so. Of course, I do not know if he got any assurances. If assurances had been given to the Minister by the companies we would probably have been able to place more reliance on them, because it has to be taken into consideration that the Minister has no power to control the premiums, and this Bill does not give him any power to do so.

Without putting additional liability on employers the thirty-five shilling maximum could. I believe, be retained, notwithstanding the demands which I suppose will be made at a later stage to reduce such maximum. It could have been maintained, for instance, if the Minister had seen his way to introduce legislation along the lines outlined in the recommendations of the Committee and if he decided to adopt all the recommendations instead of taking out only a few of them, as Deputy Rice has done. I believe that a Government Bill is all the more necessary because the subject is extremely complicated and there is real urgency, not only in respect of the revision of compensation but also in respect of international agreements, in order to secure the payment of compensation. This question is also made more complicated by the fact that there are certain international agreements—if I may use that expression—in regard to the International Labour Office Conventions. The whole matter should have been dealt with from the Government standpoint in a Government Bill rather than in a Private Bill as it is of great importance, not only to workers in the Saorstát but also to Irish seamen on British ships and to Irish emigrants to Britain who suffer accidents and who upon their return home, in accordance with present legislation, are not entitled, as they should be, to compensation.

Mr. Rice

On a point of personal explanation, may I say that I did not state, either in the House or elsewhere, that I had received assurances from the insurance companies in regard to the question of premiums? Deputy Cassidy probably confused certain facts. The insurance companies were represented on the Committee set up by the Minister and these representatives informed the Committee that if the recommendations regarding increased compensation were put in force there would not be an increase in the premiums by reason of the increased compensation. That is probably what the Deputy has in mind in referring to the assurances given by insurance companies, but I disclaim having made any statement that I had received any assurances from them.

Mr. Good

To some extent I am in agreement with Deputy Cassidy when he objects to dealing with a matter of very great importance, such as this question of workmen's compensation, in a Private Member's Bill. I think that the proper course to adopt would have been for the Government to have considered carefully the views put before them by the Committee that was set up, and then to have introduced a measure based on these recommendations. I am opposed to this method of dealing piecemeal with large measures of this kind. I think it is unfortunate from every point of view. As Deputy Cassidy pointed out, there were other aspects of the recommendations which while conferring boons, or at least, advantages to the workers would not have imposed additional burdens on industry, but they were not carried out. That fact in itself is very important at present, because I need not tell members of this House that industry at the moment is carrying burdens greater than it can bear, and that it is undesirable that further burdens should be placed upon it. From that point of view I am disappointed that a matter of this magnitude and importance should be dealt with through a Private Member's Bill rather than a Government measure based on the Committee's recommendations.

I agree with Deputy Rice when he says that the original Workmen's Compensation Act, which this Bill amends, was introduced so long ago as 1906, and that very considerable changes have occurred in the meantime, so that it is essential and advisable that a Bill should be introduced to bring that measure up to date. While I agree with that, that does not justify a matter of this importance and magnitude being dealt with through a Private Member's Bill, and I would strongly recommend the Minister to consider whether the proper course would not be to ask that this Bill be withdrawn and to introduce a Government Bill dealing with the matter on the lines of the Committee's recommendations. One would like to hear the Minister on that particular aspect of this important question.

Mr. Ruttledge

As has been stated by Deputy Fahy, we welcome this Bill. It might, perhaps, have been made more wide and deal with more matters than are set out in the Bill. Undoubtedly, the question of insurance will arise on this Bill, and also, I assume, the question of increased premiums. I have in mind particularly the extra imposition on the agricultural community. Comparatively small farmers will be compelled, as they have been in the past, to insure their workmen. In many cases they are in a very poor position to bear any further imposition, and unless some arrangement can be made with insurance companies that would enable these insurance companies to bear the increased liabilities themselves, it will mean that the Bill will impose some hardship. At the same time, that is not sufficient ground for any substantial opposition to the measure. It might appear at first, on looking over the 1906 Act and the War Addition Acts of 1917 and 1919, that benefits had been greatly increased to provide for the changed conditions. There was an increase of 25 per cent. under the 1917 Act, and a substitution of 75 per cent. by the 1919 Act, but as Deputy Rice has pointed out, and I am sure it has come under the notice of everybody conversant with practice in the courts, there have been a number of cases of extreme hardship.

One saw very often a very sad state of affairs revealed in the courts, where dependents had to come in from time to time to apply for a sum to be paid out of court to enable those dependents, if they were young persons, to be provided with some trade or employment. One saw the Circuit Judges in the position of having to cut down the amounts applied for. Where a sum of £10 or £15 was applied for, to enable a young person to go into apprenticeship, the Judges have had to cut down the amount to £5 or £10, and have not been in a position to make an award out of the funds in court that would enable these young persons to be apprenticed to some trade or occupation that would make them useful citizens in after life.

The question raised by Deputy Cassidy, in regard to conventions, is one that had already forced itself on people in certain parts of the country. In the area from which I come, I have known as many as 50 cases to arise within twelve months. In that area, large numbers of small farmers and their families migrate each year to England and Scotland, and in the various employments which they find there, there is, what appears to one in this country, a considerable number of accidents. These people find considerable difficulty in getting compensation. I have known of cases within the last few days where there was no answer whatever, cases where the weekly award had been paid for a number of weeks while these people were in England. Immediately they came to this country, the insurance companies took up the attitude that they would pay no money until they returned to England. It means that these unfortunate labourers who have come home, some of them in ignorance of the legal conditions and the loss which they would suffer by doing so, and some of them forced by economic conditions to come home, as they were not able to work in England, unless they were able to borrow a few pounds from friends, have had great hardships imposed upon them, and are not able to get their just rights. With other countries, with France notably, conventions do exist, and I suggest to Deputy Rice or to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that the question of a suitable convention between this country and England might be taken up or might be entered into with a view to overcoming a hardship which is a very real hardship in this country.

I do not want to comment on the unfairness of the fact that insurance companies, although they are satisfied that cases are real and genuine cases—and I do not refer to any second-rate companies, but to wellknown companies which have branch offices in this country—refer one simply to the section and refuse to entertain any question of merit. It means that these unfortunate people have to go back to England and remain there while their petition is filed or until the case is submitted to arbitration, and they eventually get compensation. I suggest it is a matter that should receive the urgent attention of the House, that it has existed too long, and is one which, at the earliest opportunity, should be remedied.

Captain Redmond

There seems to be a general consensus of opinion in the House in favour of the principle underlying this Bill. I was especially glad to hear Deputy Good state that in his view the Act of 1906 had to be brought up to date, but I do not entirely agree with him that it is not advisable to have a Bill such as this, limited as it may be in scope, introduced by a private member. Now I largely sympathise with private members introducing Private Bills, and, apart from that sympathy, it is highly commendable that private members, by introducing such measures as this, focus the attention of this House and of the Government on the necessity for introducing at a later date a more comprehensive Bill. This Bill, I presume, certainly from my reading of it, does not in any way claim to cover the whole field of investigation covered by the Commission, but I think it does one thing—as one fairly well acquainted with the working of the Workmen's Compensation Act, I think it sets out to remedy the immediate needs. In respect of any changes that are proposed under this Bill to existing legislation, I do not think anyone can say that they are in any way extravagant. As has been stated, conditions are not what they were in 1906, especially in the case of widows and dependants; the sums that were then considered adequate by way of compensation are anything but adequate now. In regard to the proposal that there should be some increase for partial incapacity, I think that was generally admitted too. There are no medical benefits in this country under the Insurance Acts, and I think that has been taken into account by the Committee, and should be taken into account by us in dealing with any measure affecting workmen's compensation.

The Bill, as far as it goes, should, I think, commend itself to the House, and I would support Deputy Good's suggestion that if the Minister could see his way either to accept this Bill or to embody it in a larger or more comprehensive measure, perhaps Deputy Rice might be inclined to accept that situation. As one conversant with the administration of these Acts, there is no doubt about it but there is a necessity, and an immediate necessity, for something being done on the lines indicated in this Bill. I think that the proposals in the Bill, as far as they go, are almost overdue, and the fact that it was brought forward by private members is, I think, highly commendable, and will go a long way towards securing that at least this measure, or perhaps a more comprehensive one, will be brought in almost immediately by the Government.

Mr. Gorey

There seems to be nothing more to be said in connection with this. I notice that there were twelve members on the Committee: Mr. Dickie, Mr. Eason, Mr. Perry, Mr. Barry, Mr. Morton, Senator Foran, Mr. Irwin, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Mortished, Mr. Cruise, Mr. Aylward and Sir W. de C. Wheeler, not one of whom, I think, in the whole bunch, represents the agricultural industry, which is one of the industries most concerned in this matter. I would like to ask, if I might, how many of the twelve are concerned in insurance companies. Perhaps it is too early for the Minister to answer that now. It seems to me to be the whole policy to drive the employers and the workers of the country into the jaws of the insurance companies. We know the profits these insurance companies are making out of their business. I have very little to say with regard to compensation for widows or children of people who have met with death in the course of their employment. There can be no question at all about the genuineness of such cases, and I have no comment to make on any provision introduced to deal with the families of persons who met with death. But there is another type of action, and that is the type where people meet with accidents, or pretend to meet with accidents. There is no use putting a tooth in the fact because there is no Deputy or person outside but knows of cases where the act of disablement is aped. You are breeding a type of mentality in the country—an unhealthy and undesirable growth—which is doing more than anything else to retard and hamper industry. That is a burden on employers. The type of growth you are encouraging, and that is growing up, that you cannot shut your eyes to, is doing more to hamper and damn industry than anything else at the present time. I have known cases of genuine accidents that happened through carelessness. A man gives a month, a year, or three years coming up to Dublin, and finally a bulk sum is given him and the case is settled. Within a month you will see such a man going into his original employment, able to work as well as ever. Before the settlement was made he was scarcely able to move his hand.

Mr. Cassidy

That is the fault of the doctors, not the workman.

Mr. Gorey

Then there is the other type of individual, who meets with an accident every time he gets into employment, who falls flat and faints. I think this is passed over very lightly from the agricultural point of view. If a small farmer employs a man who meets with an accident, if he is not insured, it means that he is wiped out. The payment of £100 or £200 would mean that he would have to sell his stock and place in order to meet the award. In the case of a large farmer, he would be wiped out also if he had to meet a few of these cases. I think a distinction must be made between the agricultural employee and the industrial employee. My chief comment is that this is going to create an undesirable mentality, and that that will continue to grow. It is absolutely undesirable that that should be so, and care will have to be taken to deal with cases of that description. That is my chief complaint and worry in connection with this Bill. I have nothing at all to say to cases of widows and orphans. I admit that these cases will have to be provided for, but it is the other type of cases I want to guard against.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. McGilligan)

The fears expressed by Deputy Gorey, and also by Deputy Ruttledge, always deserve some sympathy, but I do not know that the case is so serious as Deputy Gorey points out, unless Deputy Gorey wants to go root and branch into the whole matter and wipe out all workmen's compensation, because what we are actually discussing now is only the increase. There is a code, and certain increases are being discussed. The actual moneys that have to be paid by way of insurance against these liabilities are small in amount.

Mr. Gorey

It is the actual amount in relation to the wages paid in the country.

Mr. McGilligan

The actual amount which the agricultural employer has to pay to insure himself against these risks is very small. The increase, if any increase will have to be made by reason of the increased compensation that will be paid, if any, will also be small. I do not think there will be any extra burden. It is to be noted, also, that the Workmen's Compensation Committee talked of rates and talked of an experimental period, and that one member of that Committee signed the Report with the reservation that if the amounts recommended, even for an experimental period, increased the premiums that would have to be met to meet the obligations, or to insure against the falling due of these obligations, he would withdraw his name from the Report. He signed subject to that reservation. We have to go through a certain waiting period to see. One has to take what was said in evidence tendered by the representatives of the insurance companies before the Commission, that in fact rates would not be increased—or at least they held out the hope that rates would not be increased—by reason of the changes which were being considered, and which have come into the Report.

Mr. Gorey

We have to wait and see.

Mr. McGilligan

I agree that that is so, but the actual amount of the increase in money that would have to be paid by the employer under these proposals to the insurance companies by reason of claims arising under the new proposals would not be very big in relation to their immense resources, and one would have to scrutinise any changes in the rates of premiums that would be proposed by the companies if this legislation comes in. For that reason, it is rather a good thing that Deputy Rice took out merely certain sections of the Workmen's Compensation Committee's Report and fitted them into this Bill preliminary to the legislation which has been proposed and which will come.

Deputy Rice has a very limited objective in this, and it is quite absurd to complain that this Bill does not deal with this, that, and the other. It is only to deal with one thing— the amounts payable. It does not deal with the administrative difficulties that my Department are up against. Deputy Rice does not attempt to deal with any of these things. He segregates out only one item—increased payments—in the main, but there are certain routine clauses as well. I have no objection whatever to the terms of this Bill. There are certain sections in it to which minor amendments may be necessary; but Deputy Rice's proposals follow almost entirely the recommendations of the Committee, and I have already stated in this House that legislation is being put together, and that that legislation follows completely, or almost completely, the recommendations of the Workmen's Compensation Committee. Deputy Rice has gone a little bit ahead of me, but I have not any objection to his proposals. As to the delay, Deputy Cassidy says, in that fluent way in which he always says this particular thing, that the Government have done nothing. If they were only in a position to start now to get ready legislation, it would be two years before that legislation would be introduced. As it is, we have done so much—I would not like to hold out a promise of any earlier introduction of that legislation than the autumn——

Mr. Cassidy

It is over three years since the Report.

Mr. McGilligan

And if we had done nothing it would be a further three years before the introduction of legislation. It is not a simple matter to get the whole mass of this arranged, bearing in mind the different reactions. Deputy Cassidy has one type of people in mind, the people who will benefit. But having that limited objective, he might also find that his sympathies are not properly directed, because if it would have the result that Deputy Gorey believed—that the insurance companies were going to increase the premiums—undoubtedly there would be a reaction which Deputy Cassidy would not like.

Mr. Cassidy

But these recommendations have already guarded against that.

Mr. McGilligan

They do not guard against it. The recommendations of the Committee may contain certain pious aspirations. They may say that the people before them in evidence said certain things. But I have had now about four years' experience of what people say when they are urging a case and what they do afterwards when they achieve their aim, and the two things do not always coincide. I do not know whether Deputy Rice wishes to persevere with this Bill or not. As far as time is concerned, I can hold out no hope whatever of bringing in legislation, and I would not bind myself to bring in legislation implementing the report of the Workmen's Compensation Committee earlier than the autumn. It is a matter of the draftsman's office, the particular way in which it is clogged up with other matters at the moment. There is the fact that there is a financial session ahead for the House: even if we had legislation ready there would be little time for its discussion, and it may be a good thing to have segregated in a Private Member's Bill provisions that relate only to the increased amounts and to get them passed speedily.

An Ceann Comhairle

took the Chair.

Mr. McGilligan

Deputy Ruttledge referred to the difficulties which have arisen from what are called the nonresident workmen and from Saorstát citizens serving on British ships. There again the Report simply included a few paragraphs which set out the difficulties, and wound up by saying that they had noticed that the British Government were giving consideration to the signing of a certain International Labour Report with regard to giving international treatment. They said that they thought that these international agreements provided a way by which mutual arrangements could be made for the giving of international treatment. But the fact of the matter is that we have found that, although other Governments have been disposed to sign International Labour Office agreements, they are not always disposed to follow these up when it comes to their own domestic legislation, and we have not found that that avenue was an easy approach to the Governments concerned for getting reciprocal arrangements made in these matters. The fact of the matter is that in the cases of the migration of labour from this side to England and to British registered ships that migration is much bigger, even relative to the population, than the migration the other way. Consequently the benefits that would accrue would accrue almost entirely to us, and it is not easy to convince a Government, where the scales seem to be loaded heavily against them, that this proposal is equitable, and that the only just thing that they could do would be to face up to these extra payments and let our workmen have the benefit of what would be called a mutual arrangement, but which these other Governments say would be an entirely one-sided arrangement. However, attempts have been made to get certain arrangements put through, but without any great success so far. I do not think that the introduction of legislation would help that situation a bit. That is outside legislation altogether, and we must simply depend on any arguments that can be brought to bear on other Governments to persuade them that it is the proper thing to do.

I am not sure if Deputy Rice did state in detail how far his proposals were in line either with the legislation now in operation in Great Britain or with the recommendations in the report of the Workmen's Compensation Committee. As far as my Department is concerned, this Bill is simply taking out the sections in that report dealing with increased payments. In fact, it is pretty well in line with everything recommended in that report. I think there is just one small item in respect of the minimum. The Departmental report talk of fixed allowances. There may be some variations there, but it is only a small thing. This Bill, if it goes through and becomes an Act, will not interfere with the passage of the more comprehensive legislation to be introduced later on. That comprehensive legislation may entail some very small amendment of this Bill if it ever becomes an Act.

Captain Redmond

In view of the Minister's statement as to his readiness to accept the principle of the Bill, would it be possible for him to facilitate its passage, either by taking it up as a Government measure and thereby not occupying private members' time with it, or else by giving more time for its consideration?

Mr. McGilligan

In the present state of the Government programme with regard to legislation, I think the Bill is likely to get more time if persevered with as a Private Member's Bill than it would get otherwise.

Captain Redmond

But that, of course, would be at the expense of private members' time?

An Ceann Comhairle

There is no other Private Members Bill on the Order Paper, so that this Bill would have precedence.

Mr. Rice

In concluding the debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, I just wish to say a few words. The main adverse criticism of the Bill came from Deputies Good, Cassidy and Gorey. I felt duly impressed with my own nothingness when I heard Deputy Gorey criticise the conduct of a private member in introducing a Bill.

Mr. Gorey

I did not criticise the Deputy for introducing his Bill.

Mr. Rice

I apologise. I should have said Deputy Good. As a back-bencher, I feel duly impressed with my own nothingness when I compare myself to Deputy Good, who is a front-bencher in the Independent Party.

Mr. Good

May I explain? The reason for my criticism was this: that this Bill purports to carry out the recommendations of a Committee set up by the Government. Surely it is the duty of a Government that sets up a Committee to follow up the recommendations made by that Committee, and to introduce a Bill dealing with them.

Mr. Rice

In spite of Deputy Good's criticism and of his attack, I intend to go on with this Bill. It has been suggested by Deputy Cassidy that this Bill is not comprehensive enough. Does the Deputy know the amount of work required to be done in order to prepare a general Bill dealing with the question of workmen's compensation? That is a matter that the Department must spend many months on and devote a great deal of work to.

Mr. Cassidy

When speaking, I suggested that the Government should have introduced legislation dealing with this matter instead of leaving it to a private member, because I believe that this Bill only deals with a very small fraction of a very complicated subject.

Mr. McGilligan

Surely a fraction is better than nothing.

Mr. Rice

The Minister has already indicated that his Department is engaged on the preparation of legislation in regard to this matter. If the Deputy only considered the matter for a moment, he would realise that the preparation of a general Bill to consolidate the law relating to workmen's compensation is a work that will engage the staff in the Minister's Department for a very considerable time. Does the Deputy object to a Bill being introduced to remedy a grievance under which working people are suffering at the present time?

Mr. Cassidy

No.

Mr. Rice

My Bill aims at this: to prevent these individual cases of hardship happening, as they must happen, while the bigger work of legislation is being prepared by the Minister. With regard to Deputy Gorey's criticism of the Bill, I am sorry that I confused his name at the moment with that of another Deputy. I did not intend to say anything that would in any way impute to Deputy Gorey the suggestion that he held any view as to a private member not being entitled to introduce a Bill. Deputy Gorey approached the matter from the point of view that in regard to claims under the Workmen's Compensation Act there could be shamming. I have looked up the debates that took place when the first Workmen's Compensation Bill was introduced in 1906. From the social point of view, I do not think that I read in those debates anything so reactionary as Deputy Gorey's speech here to-day on this Bill. If, for instance, there had been a Workmen's Compensation Bill introduced in 1806 instead of 1906, we might possibly have found in connection with it something similar to the contribution that Deputy Gorey made on this Bill to-day.

Mr. Gorey

Does the Deputy deny the fact that there is shamming?

Mr. Rice

Deputy's Gorey's great anxiety is to prevent shamming. I would be glad if the Deputy would draft some amendment to this Bill that would meet cases of the sort, I confess it is beyond my capacity to do so, but I would be glad if the Deputy were to draft some amendments to deal with the particular class of case that he has in mind.

Mr. Gorey

Would they interfere with the principle of the Bill?

Mr. Rice

Not in the slightest.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Friday, 8th March.