On this measure, I invited your attention, a Chinn Comhairle, at the beginning of the proceedings, to a matter which I ask leave to raise now. This Bill was referred to a Committee of the whole House. I suggest to the Minister that, owing to its character, it could be more effectively dealt with by Special Committee. The reason I advance for that suggestion is that the Bill has been practically adopted in toto from the British statute. The British Act of Parliament has been in force for a considerable number of years and there is a mass of judicial decisions upon it. It would be of great advantage if persons familiar with the practice of workmen's compensation law had an opportunity of sitting down over the Bill, so as to amend it in the light of judicial comment on certain sections which have been in operation in Britain for some time. I make the proposal because I believe that certain sections of the Act are, owing to their uncertainty, reacting very unfavourably on the workmen of Great Britain. It will be extremely difficult to clarify these sections unless an opportunity is afforded of calling in expert opinion from the Bench, from the legal professions and, possibly, from the trade unions, in order to assist in devising a form of words which will obviate here a great deal of the litigation that is taking place elsewhere.
In Committee on Finance. - Money Resolution—Workmen's Compensation Bill.
I do not think it desirable that this Bill should be referred to such a Committee as the Deputy suggests. The necessity for amending the workmen's compensation code has been under consideration for a long time. An Inter-Departmental Committee was established and a voluminous report was prepared by it and is available. The Department of Industry and Commerce has had the whole subject under consideration for a number of years and the Bill is the product of two successive Governments. The Bill was prepared in skeleton form by one Government and, with certain amendments, has been introduced by another Government. Any points the Deputy wishes to suggest, or any amendments he wishes to propose, can be fully discussed here. We must not forget that the public are interested, very definitely, in the Bill. If there is any desire to leave special matters over for consideration, I should not be averse to allowing quite a considerable time to elapse between the Committee Stage and the Report Stage, and, if the number of amendments necessitated it, I should be prepared to have the Bill recommitted on Report.
I think that the Minister has missed the point of Deputy Dillon's proposal. The whole subject of workmen's compensation legislation, and its amendment, was referred to a Committee in the year 1925, so far as I remember. That Committee reported in about a year. Deputy Dillon makes the point, which is a sound point, that since 1926 there has been quite an amount of judicial interpretation of the Act upon which this Bill is founded. If that Committee were sitting to-day, there is reason to believe that it would produce a different report. If it had this Bill before it as a skeleton measure, there is reason to believe that it would recommend a number of improvements. The suggestion is made that it would be well to have the advice of people who are experienced, both on the legal and on the workmen's side, brought to bear upon the measure.
The Minister makes the point that this is a matter of public interest. So it is, and putting it before a Special Committee would not detract from its public interest because it would again have to be discussed here; but it would come here for discussion in a way that would shorten the proceedings considerably. The Minister says that this measure has been under consideration for a long time. So it has. If the Minister has any programme in mind for the enactment of this as law, and if he will state that programme, we could then form impressions as to whether a Select Committee would delay its progress. If the Minister says he is likely to give a long period between the Committee and Report Stages, and even to re-commit the measure on the Report Stage, I assume he has abandoned any intention of getting the Bill through prior to Christmas. If that is so, there is no reason why this Bill could not be submitted to a Select Committee for consideration. I am convinced that that Select Committee would present to the House a measure which, in the light of what has happened since 1926, would be a better measure and it would not be subject to a discussion here which would in any way tend to delay its ultimate operation.
If it is not intended to have this Bill made law, passed through both Houses of the Oireachtas, prior to the end of February or the beginning of March, I can assure the Minister there will be no hindrance by reason of having it sent to a Select Committee. There is ample material arising out of judicial decisions since 1926 to enable the Select Committee to make useful suggestions. In view of the bad working in England of the legislation on which this Bill is founded, there is ample material to enable a Select Committee to do good work. The normal course of the Bill will not be held up and I believe the Bill itself, following its consideration by a Select Committee, will be much better from the angle of the workman. If the Bill is let through in its present form it will be very much better from the angle of the legal profession.
I am afraid I cannot accept the Deputy's statement. The Deputy may rest satisfied that any decisions made by the British courts, and that may have a bearing on the Bill, have been considered.
The skeleton Bill did not take any great account of them. The Minister mentioned "with slight amendments from the skeleton Bill."
I am not aware of any modification in the Bill apart from one or two of the amendments I am prepared to accept and some which I will put myself to the House and which will be likely to improve the Bill. If the Deputy suggests any amendments which are likely to improve the Bill I will be happy to consider them, but I see no reason why we should not consider them here.
Surely it is manifest to the Minister that this measure is practically word for word the same as the British statute, and very reasonably so. No one is commenting adversely on that at all, but in the light of that fact, with this similarity and the mass of judicial decisions, a variety of things will arise for consideration. I will give one example. Take Section 5, sub-section (2), paragraph (b) (i), "employed for the purposes of his employer's trade or business." That in itself requires reconsideration because that was put in to try and improve on an older section and in the opinion of many judges it has made confusion worse confounded. In the light of all the decisions given on those words, if skilled persons were to give assistance to a Select Committee it might well be that we could draft a new form of words which would obviate an enormous amount of litigation that is bound to come on existing decisions, if these words are allowed to remain.
I do not know of any person whose services could be secured who is better fitted to draft a Bill than those who did draft it.
If we had an opportunity of consulting the judges before whom these cases are appearing every day, the men engaged in them, the trades union officials, who frequently lend a hand in preparing the cases, and who know intimately the circumstances that arise, we could probably devise a form of words which would meet the difficulties that arise in practice. We cannot do that here without the expert advice and guidance that this type of person can give us. This House in Committee has no means of getting that advice, whereas a select committee has. My proposal is purely for the purpose of seizing the opportunity we have of codifying the workmen's compensation law in the best possible way. Once the measure is passed, probably no attempt will be made in our generation to codify the law.
By an Order of this House the Bill now under consideration was referred to a Committee of the whole House. That was on 11th October. The Chair is bound by that Order unless there is agreement to set up a select or a special committee. As the Minister will not agree to that course, we must proceed with the Committee Stage.
I beg to move:
That it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by the Oireachtas of any expenses incurred pursuant to the provisions of any Act of the present Session to consolidate and amend the law relating to compensation to workmen for injuries suffered in the course of their employment.
What is the extent of the obligation involved on the State?
It may be that the enactment of the Bill will involve some burden on public funds in respect to injuries to State employees. On the other hand, there may be a certain saving in that regard. The only effect upon public funds will be in respect of compensation payments to State workers.
I asked for a sum to be stated, even an estimate.
It is not possible to give an estimate. We do not know the number of State employees who are going to meet with accidents.
The Minister can surely say that it will not be over £50,000 or £100,000. Can he not put an over-riding maximum?
No; it is purely a matter of chance.
Question agreed to.