As the First Reading of this Bill was opposed, one of the Deputies introducing it is entitled to make a short statement, and the Deputy opposing it is also entitled to make a short statement at this stage.
Private Deputies' Business. - Workmen's Compensation (Increase of Compensation) Bill, 1933—First Stage.
Mr. Rice
I ask leave to introduce a Bill entitled an Act to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906, and the Acts amending that Act in respect of the amounts of compensation payable thereunder.
This is a Bill embodying the terms of a Bill I introduced in 1929. The principle is to increase the amount of compensation payable to workmen in the case of accidents, fatal or non-fatal. The law in this country is still based upon the Act of 1906. The important principle in the Bill is that under the Act of 1906 the maximum amount of compensation payable to dependents of workmen killed in the course of employment is still £300. If you consider a case where a man leaves a widow and a number of children, no matter what his wages were, the total amount of compensation payable to his dependents is still the figure fixed by the Act of 1906, namely £300. It is not necessary to point out to the House that owing to the changed conditions since that time, that sum is wholly inadequate for the dependents of workmen who, at all events, earned a certain amount of money and left certain dependents, having regard to the change that took place between 1906 and 1933. The Bill also provides for an increase of compensation in the case of non-fatal accidents to workmen. I introduced a Bill in the year 1929 because I was struck by the great hardship inflicted on the dependents of workmen, killed or injured in the course of their employment, by reason of the changes in the value of money. I introduce this Bill for the purpose of applying to this country, as regards the amount of compensation that will be awarded, conditions similar to those that prevail in other countries, where wages and conditions are somewhat similar, having regard to the cost of living.
The Bill I introduced in 1929 was referred to a Special Committee, was amended there, and then came before the House. That Bill was withdrawn by me with the consent of all Parties. The present Minister for Local Government and Public Health spoke on the Bill. It was also spoken to by the Minister for Industry and Commerce at the time and by Deputy O'Connell who was then Leader of the Labour Party. On the suggestion of the Minister for Local Government I withdrew that Bill. At that time the Minister pointed out that a special departmental committee had been appointed by him and had gone into certain statistics as regards workmen's compensation, but that the information they had before them was partial and was not sufficient on which to make an adequate report. With the consent of all Parties it was suggested that consideration of the Bill should be deferred and that it should be referred back. I have brought this Bill forward now because I feel this is a grievance that working people have. It is, no doubt, only a partial Bill to deal with one aspect, the question of amending the law of workmen's compensation. I shall be very glad if the Minister is in a position to tell us that he is prepared to amend the law as regards this and other matters dealing with workmen's compensation. My Bill is confined to one consideration, namely to provide adequate compensation in the case of fatal and non-fatal injuries. I think this is a grievance that the working people suffer under when they meet with a fatal or non-fatal accident in respect of which under present conditions they do not receive adequate compensation. For that reason I ask the House to pass the First Reading.
My sole reason for opposing the introduction of this Bill is that I have prepared, and have almost ready for introduction a Bill designed to give general effect to the majority of the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee set up in 1925, and to codify the whole of the workmen's compensation code. That Bill will almost certainly be introduced in the present Session. Its introduction will, I believe, necessitate the repeal of this Bill, if passed in the meantime. It is much more likely the Bill will be introduced before the measure moved by the Deputy would have been passed here. The Bill I contemplate introducing covers the points dealt with in the Deputy's Bill and, of course, a great deal besides. I agree fully that the matter of amend ing the Workmen's Compensation Act has been unduly delayed and that considerable injustice has been caused. I can assure the House that there will be no delay whatever in bringing the Bill to a point at which we can have it considered by the Dáil.
Mr. Rice
May I ask the Minister if the Bill he proposes to introduce will embody the principles contained in this Bill, namely, adequate compensation?
It will cover every point covered in the Deputy's Bill.
Can the Minister give any idea approximately when the proposed Bill is likely to be introduced?
I would not like to tie myself to a particular day. I will undertake to have it introduced, and I certainly hope to get it passed in the present session.
Would the Minister say one month, two months or three months, so that we will know precisely?
The Bill has reached the stage that it has been drafted. Certain alterations in the draft have to be made. So far as I am concerned, these alterations could be made to-morrow, but the Deputy will understand that it is not entirely a matter for me and that the order of business in the draftsman's office would have to be taken into account. I should say, that it will be introduced in this session.
Mr. Rice
I will withdraw the Bill if the Minister will undertake to introduce it in this session.
Yes, it will be introduce it in this session.
How long a period constitutes a session? Does the Minister know?
I think that the Deputy, who has more legal knowledge than I, can define what a session is himself. I do not undertake to define what is a session of the Dáil.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.