I move that the Bill be read a Second Time. In 1925 Deputy McGilligan when Minister for Industry and Commerce appointed a Departmental Committee on Workmen's Compensation. The report of that Committee was published in the following year. It reviewed very fully the law relating to workmen's compensation and made a number of recommendations for its amendment. The Committee was re-summoned in 1929 and reconsidered certain matters referred to in the original Report. The Report of the second Committee was also published in that year. The Bill now before the Dáil follows closely on the recommendations of the Departmental Committee although it departs from them in some particulars. It is a codifying measure. It embodies the provisions of the existing Acts which are being maintained and will in future represent the law upon workmen's compensation in this country.
As Deputies will have noticed, it is a very complicated measure, but in by far the greater part its provisions are merely a re-enactment of the existing law. I think it will suffice at this stage if I give merely a brief review of the main provisions of the existing law, the changes we propose to effect in it and to make a comparison between the provisions of the Bill and the provisions of the existing law in Great Britain which was amended since the establishment of the Saorstát. The principal Act at present in operation is the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1906. The amount of compensation payable under that Act to workmen who were injured in the course of their employment both fatally and non-fatally was based on the wage rates which prevailed in 1906. Owing to the very appreciable changes in wage rates that took place during the period of the European War, an Act was passed in 1917 and another in 1919 which provided for an increase in the compensation in non-fatal cases, leaving the compensation payable in fatal cases unchanged. The increase in the maximum compensation in non-fatal cases effected by these two Acts was to the extent of 75 per cent.
A number of other Acts of minor consequence were passed since the principal Act, but it is not necessary to deal with them at this stage; any question arising out of them can be considered more fully on Committee Stage. The principal Act and the amending Acts were amended and codified in Great Britain and the whole code was brought up to date both in respect of the general provisions and in respect of the amount of compensation payable to injured workmen. No changes were made here, so that the law here since the establishment of the Saorstát has remained the same as it was in Great Britain at the time the Saorstát was established. Since 1923 there has been a divergence between the law of both countries in consequence of the changes effected on the other side of the Irish Sea. The principal matters in which changes are made by this Bill are, of course, in the amounts of compensation payable both in respect of fatal and non-fatal cases.
I should mention that the War Addition Acts which increased the compensation in non-fatal cases were only of a temporary nature, but they have been continued here year after year in the Expiring Laws Bill. They are being repealed entirely in this measure, which will be of a permanent character. The class of persons covered by the Act of 1906 was defined in the following words:—"Any person who has entered into or works under a contract of service or apprenticeship with an employer, whether by way of manual labour, clerical work, or otherwise, and whether the contract is expressed or implied, or is oral or in writing." It did not include any person employed otherwise than by way of manual labour whose remuneration exceeded £250 a year, or any person whose employment was of a casual nature unless such person was employed for the purposes of his employer's trade or business, any member of the police force, any person engaged in out-work or any member of the employer's family dwelling in his house.
The definition in the Bill before the Dáil is widened so that the exclusion of persons employed otherwise than by way of manual labour will operate only when such persons have a remuneration in excess of £350 as against £250 at the present time. A casual worker will be brought under the provisions of the Bill but only when he is employed for the purpose of his employer's trade or business, or about the residence of his employer, or when employed for the purpose of any game and recreation, and engaged or paid through a club. There will also be brought in certain other classes of workmen such as share-fishermen, crews of certain ships, etc.
In the principal Act the dependants are defined as persons wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of the workman at the time of his death. The members of a family include grandparents, grandchildren, stepbrother or sister, step-son or daughter, half-brother or half-sister. The definition of dependants is being extended so as to bring it into accord with the recommendation of the Inter-departmental Committee.
The principal Act gave a statutory right of compensation to a workman who sustained injury or accident arising out of or in the course of his employment, or who contracts an industrial disease in the course of his employment. The person liable to pay compensation is in every case of accident or industrial disease the employer who, as Deputies are aware, as a general rule covers his liability by insurance. The employer was prohibited from contracting out of his liability except by way of an improved scheme under which the benefits to injured workmen could not be less favourable to the workmen or their dependants than those provided by the Act. No portion of the compensation fell upon State funds. Under the Act at present in operation in the Saorstát the amount of compensation payable in the case of injuries sustained by a workman resulting in his death was fixed at £150, or three years' earnings up to a maximum of £300. The maximum compensation which will be payable under this Bill is £600 divided into two lump sums, one of which is called the adults' lump sum and the other the children's lump sum. I will deal later in greater detail with the manner in which these sums are disposed of in various circumstances that may arise.
The point to note, however, is that the position created by the introduction of the War Addition Acts is being removed, and the present maximum provision which has prevailed in this country since 1906 is being increased to the amount recommended by the Committee. The Committee made recommendations as to the allocation of the amount between different classes of dependants, between adult dependants of various kinds and children of various kinds. They appear not to have paid full attention to the fact that under their scheme it would be possible in certain cases for a payment in excess of the £600 maximum recommended by them to be made. That error in their recommendation has been repaired. Their recommendations have been departed from in one other respect to which I shall refer later. There are other provisions in respect to fatal accidents such as those which provide for the deduction from the lump sum of any sum paid to the employee following the accident, and before his death. There is also provision for the calculation by the court of the degree of dependency and the allocation of compensation in accordance with the degree of dependency. If there are no dependants, under the present law there is a maximum of £10 to the person who undertook the funeral of the deceased person. That sum is increased to £15. Under the present law in non-fatal cases, the Act of 1906 provides for a weekly payment equivalent in amount to 50 per cent. of the average weekly earnings of the injured workman during the preceding twelve months, during the period of his incapacity. There was a fixed maximum of £1 to the amount of compensation calculated on that basis but the War Addition Acts in 1917 and 1919 raised the maximum by 75 per cent; that is to 35/- a week. The provisions of the Bill now before the Dáil depart from that method of calculation. Compensation will, of course, continue to be made on the basis of weekly payments based upon the pre-accident average earning of the workman. The maximum payment is being fixed at 30/- per week but subject to that maximum the amount will be 80 per cent. of the weekly earning, where less than £1 a week, 75 per cent. in all other cases.
The present position of the law in Great Britain provides for a 50 per cent. basis of calculation subject to a 30/- maximum. The position will be that the payments in a case of partial injury made under this Bill, in the Saorstát, will, in all cases except the maximum cases, be slightly higher than at present is the position in Great Britain. The present position in Great Britain has existed since 1923. There is provision in the Bill which permits of the weekly payments being discharged by a lump sum payment, with the permission of the court, if they have continued for six months. But if the incapacity lasts for two weeks no compensation is payable in respect to the first week.
I referred to payments made in fatal cases and to the division of the total amount into two lump sums—the adults' lump sum and the children's lump sum. The adults' lump sum is calculated at 156 times the average weekly earnings of such workman for three years subject to a minimum of £200, and a maximum of £300 and will be distributable among the adult dependants of the workman in such proportion as the court may think fit. The amount of the children's lump sum will depend upon the number of children and the age of the children. The Bill provides that in the case of one child the payment shall be £2 1s. 8d. per month or £25 per year; in the case of two children £20 each; in the case of three children £15 each, in the case of four children £12 10s., and in the case of five children £10 per annum or £50 per annum in all. In other words, these payments, set out in the Schedule of the Bill, in respect of each child, will be multiplied by the number of months the child has to live until it attains the age of 15 years. One lump sum, in no case less than £200, will be paid and allocated amongst the children in proportion to ages. Payments to a child will be made out of court at such time as the court may direct. I mentioned the case where compensation is paid to the workman in the interval between the date of the injury and the date of death, and that it will be deducted from the compensation payable to his dependants afterwards. Where the adults' lump sum and the children's sum exceeds £600 they will be reduced pro rata so that the total fixed in any case will not be more than £600.
The compensation awardable to persons partially dependent upon the earnings of the deceased worker will be in proportion to the compensation that would be payable if they had been wholly dependent upon his earnings. The proportion will be determined by the court in proportion to the loss sustained by the dependants on the death of the workman. Partial dependency is defined in the Bill: "A person shall not for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be a partial dependant of another person unless he was dependent partially on contributions from that other person for the provision of the ordinary necessaries of life suitable for persons in his class and position." I mentioned payment in fatal cases. Where incapacity is only partial the amount of compensation is based on the difference between the pre-accident average weekly earnings and the post-accident average weekly earnings, where such difference does not exceed £1 the compensation is 80 per cent. and in all other cases 75 per cent.
One recommendation of the Committee is not embodied in the Bill. That is the recommendation that the county registrar should have power to satisfy himself that the terms of an agreement between the employer and the workman were fair and equitable— that is an agreement registered with the county registrar—and that in any cases where the county registrar, or, on appeal, the judge, was satisfied that payment of a lump sum would not be to the advantage of the workman power should be given to have the lump sum allotted to the workman in such amount and at such intervals as might be considered advisable in the workman's interests. The objection to the adoption of that recommendation was a legal one. Under the Constitution the sole authority which may hear and determine disputes is the courts, and it was thought that it might be an infringement of the Constitution to give the registrar the powers which are vested expressly in the judge. The Act also makes provision for an amendment of the law in respect of the jurisdiction of the courts. The principle of arbitration is abandoned, and it is provided that the Circuit Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine all claims for compensation arising out of the Act, with an appeal on questions of law from any decision of the Circuit Court to the Supreme Court, but subject to such appeal the decision of the Circuit Court to be final and conclusive. The reason for making that change is that it was found in practice that practically all cases came before the Circuit Court Judge to hear them in his capacity of arbitrator. The introduction of this legislation therefore has been availed of to enable the Circuit Court Judge to hear those cases in his capacity as judge, and to substitute that for the principle of arbitration which existed in the Workmen's Compensation Code heretofore. The Bill provides for the registration, in a register to be kept by the county registrar, of any actual agreement in relation to compensation which may be made, and not a memorandum of such agreement as at present.
There are a number of other provisions which might be more conveniently discussed in Committee. In fact I think the whole Bill is one which lends itself to a Committee type of discussion more than to the type of discussion which we ordinarily have on Second Reading. The various sections of it lend themselves to separate discussion, the principle of the Bill being one which of course is not merely accepted generally but has in fact been in operation for nearly 30 years in this country. From time to time various suggestions have been made for the amendment of the law relating to workmen's compensation in a manner much more drastic than this Bill provides. Those suggestions varied from State insurance to compulsory insurance, and various schemes of all-in insurance for workmen, associated with the Unemployment Insurance and the National Health Insurance Acts. Whatever case can be made for the adoption of one or other of those measures it is obvious that it would take a considerable time to prepare and enact the necessary legislation. Certain undesirable consequences would follow from the announcement of a decision to enact legislation of that kind. When I became Minister for Industry and Commerce I found a Bill relating to workmen's compensation in an advanced stage of preparation in the Department. That Bill was, like the present Bill before the Dáil, based largely on the recommendations of the Inter-Departmental Committee, although it departed from them in a number of respects, just as this Bill does. The highly complicated and technical nature of the legislation made it desirable that we should adopt some device for improving upon the existing law in the manner recommended by the Committee which would be comparatively simple when contrasted with the changes which would have to be made if any of the more drastic schemes of reform were decided upon. That is why the Bill before the Dáil is in form and in substance similar to the legislation which has heretofore been in operation, and that the only changes which are being made are changes of detail, changes in respect of the amount of compensation, the manner of assessing that compensation, the manner of awarding the compensation, and in the various administrative steps that have to be taken in relation to a measure of this kind.
Some explanation is, of course, necessary as to the decisions which have been made, where those decisions depart from either the existing practice or the recommendations of the Committee. I take it that the principal matter which will be of interest, at this stage of the discussion, at any rate, will be the maximum amounts of compensation. In so far as we have changed the amount in relation to fatal cases we have adopted the recommendation of the Committee, and brought our law into conformity with the law which exists in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, subject only to the variation in the method of assessing and distributing the compensation payable in the case of children. The present practice, of course, is that sums paid in respect of children are lodged in court, and accumulate for the benefit of the children until they come of age. That method is not altogether suitable; in fact, the child might be in considerable hardship, might have need of the money, and unable to obtain it at some particular stage of its life. On the other hand, it would be feasible to provide that compensation would take the form of regular periodic payments in respect of the child, either to the child or to its guardian—monthly or quarterly or annual payments. The procedure adopted in the Bill is to leave discretion in these matters to the court, so that the court can make those periodic payments in such amounts and in such manner as in its discretion seems to be best in the child's interest.
In non-fatal cases, no doubt comment will be made upon the fact that the maximum payment of compensation is being reduced from 35/- to 30/-. The present law permits of a maximum payment of 35/-, and the Inter-Departmental Committee recommended a maximum of 35/-. Under the present law, and, of course, under the law in Great Britain, compensation is assessed by taking 50 per cent. of the earnings, subject to that maximum. We are proposing to take, where the earnings are more than £1, 75 per cent., subject to the lower maximum. A larger number of people will get the maximum payment, and, below the maximum, payment will, on the average, be larger. Of course, at the top there will be certain workmen who in the future will get under this Bill a lower payment than they would have got under the existing law. We must bear in mind, however, that the 35/- maximum was fixed at the period when prices and wages of all kinds were at their peak, in consequence of the disturbance in conditions produced by the war, and that the Inter-Departmental Committee which recommended the 35/- maximum met in the year 1925. There has been a very sharp fall in the cost of living since then, and also in the general amount of remuneration of workmen of various kinds, with some exceptions, it is true. In Great Britain, the 35/- maximum was reduced to 30/- in 1923, and has been 30/- in Great Britain since. We are now fixing the maximum sum as in Great Britain. Apart from the consideration that 30/- to-day is equivalent to 35/- when that sum was fixed after the war, there is also the fact that we cannot afford to maintain in this country a standard of legislation of this kind at a higher point than the much more highly industrialised country close to us is able to maintain.
In any circumstances, the enactment of this measure might possibly necessitate an increase in insurance premiums because of the increased payment now made belatedly in respect of fatal cases and because of other provisions of the measure but that increase will be off-set by the reduction in the maximum payment in non-fatal cases. I think that in so far as the scale here will be better than the scale prevailing in Great Britain, it is not open to criticism on that score, but in any event the measure that now operates here was enacted as a temporary measure and was always regarded as such. The difference in the method of calculation will have of course its effect on the amount awarded in particular cases so that for a number of workers, and particularly workers of the class that are remunerated on the lower scales, the amount of compensation which will be payable in future will be similar to that now prevailing and somewhat higher than that prevailing in Great Britain.
The various other matters dealt with in the Bill are minor matters. They are the type of provisions which suggest themselves to those who have been for a particular time associated with the administration of a measure of this kind. I am quite willing to consider any suggestions or proposals from any part of the House in relation to them to amend the Bill, if it appears that it is capable of improvement by the adoption of any suggestion that may be made. I do not suppose that it is a Bill that can be regarded in any sense as a controversial measure, seeing that one-half of its parentage rests with the Party opposite and the other half with the present Government. Even though it is not quite the child that the Party opposite left after them, it has a very strong resemblance to it and they cannot very well now disown it. In these circumstances we can proceed to discuss it without advertence to Party differences. I am sure that most Deputies are anxious that we should ensure that the law relating to workmen's compensation shall be put on a satisfactory basis, so that the changes, which everybody knew were coming, will be effected and that all necessary alterations in the practices of insurance companies and employers may be made.
