So I gather. Clearly the matter has been allowed to drag on until we have arrived at the present position when, if we do not try to meet the immediate problem of the sustenance of people who have suffered injuries, we may find ourselves in a very difficult position. Nobody would suggest that this Bill is all that is required to meet the situation. It is quite clear, and it can be argued, that there are many defects in the system and that this Bill could be utilised as an opportunity to deal with them, but there are so many defects to be dealt with that I feel it would be a physical impossibility to deal with them in the form of an amending Bill, no matter how voluminous that Bill might be. Speaking for those who have to deal with this particular problem day after day, from the point of view of the injured workman, not from the point of view of the employer, the insurance company or the legal profession, I can only see this particular problem being dealt with either on the basis of a complete recasting of the whole code of workmen's compensation and a completely new approach to it or, alternatively, proceeding on the lines of trying to deal with it under a general social security scheme. I have no hesitation in saying that from the point of view of the trade unions and the workmen themselves we would prefer to have it regarded as a social insurance problem, to get rid not merely of difficulties experienced by ordinary employers and the greater difficulties with the insurance companies, but also the not inconsiderable difficulties with the legal profession.
The Workmen's Compensation Act is not a compensation Act, but a hunger Act. The whole code has been based on the physical capacity of the worker to stick it out long enough to get the compensation that he would be entitled to under the Act. If his power of resistance is greater than that of the insurance company or the employer, then he is lucky and he gets all he is entitled to get under the Act. If his circumstances are such that he is not able to stick it out, he forfeits many of his legally justifiable claims. That is a position from which we have to try to get away.
If we provide a system of insurance based on the collective efforts of those who incur the ordinary illnesses, such as we deal with under our national health insurance system, or if we provide insurance for those who incur the ordinary difficulties arising from unemployment in the form of unemployment insurance or unemployment assistance, there is equally strong and sound argument why we should cover this particular problem of injuries and accidents arising in the course of a person's service, not merely to an individual employer but to the community, by some form of mutual insurance. We should approach it, as Deputy de Valera said, not on the basis of a loss of capacity to earn but on the basis of giving to the insured worker and his family the necessary sustenance and support that he requires as a human being during illness. The only way in which that can be properly dealt with is through some system of insurance administered by the State.
There is the other problem of the physical loss incurred when a man who loses a limb or portion of a limb, or the loss sustained by him in contracting a disease which becomes chronic. That is a feature that has to be dealt with over and above the ordinary insurance scheme. Then we have the question of negligence on the part of the employer and the direct consequences arising from that. But the basic problem which affects the ordinary workingman and his family is the problem of how to live after he meets with an accident and how to maintain himself, not merely in a position where he can continue his struggle for his rights under the Act but how to maintain himself and his family during his period of physical incapacity. That is one problem which I think can be only met and dealt with through an insurance scheme something similar to that which we have for the national health and unemployment insurance. The actual details on the matter will have to be carefully worked out. The question of regarding it as a general system of social service, in contrast to the present approach to the problem, is one which should appeal to every Deputy who considers the problem in the light of the attitude which we have adopted on these general social problems.
There seems to me to be no defence whatever, apart from the innumerable defects which have shown themselves, for the continuance of the present system. Why out of the injuries and the blood and death of human beings insurance companies have been allowed to take for themselves practically 10/- out of every £1 subscribed in premiums, I do not know. We do not permit that in connection with ordinary sickness. Why the insured workman, regardless of the question of risk in employment and the neglect of the employer, who has met with disability in giving service to the community should be the victim of this system of insurance I fail to see. From the point of view of the moneys collected for the protection of these men, at least half of which is retained by the insurance companies in managerial expenses, that sum of money alone would make a very large contribution to the cost of running a properly administered State scheme. But, even apart from that aspect of the matter, there are the difficulties and the worry and trouble and expense that are incurred in trying to administer the present code as between the employer, the insurance company and the legal profession as such, and I think all those who have had experience in trying to find their way through this jungle in the interests of the workingman would be greatly relieved if we can find a simple and more direct way of dealing with the problem.
On the question raised by a number of Deputies as to taking advantage of this Bill to introduce certain amendments dealing with the more glaring defects, I think that everybody here will have a point of view. I have no doubt that, from the point of view of trade unions, we could submit so many amendments to the Minister that it is more than likely we would get nothing through this House in a matter of months. At the moment we are concerned with the immediate problem that men and women who are in receipt of weekly payments or who are likely to become insured and have to fall back upon the provisions of the Act can no longer exist on the present compensation of 37/6 a week. The sum proposed in the Bill of 50/ is also inadequate. I have no hesitation in saying that we have only started to try to deal with the problem.
The suggestion made by Deputy Lynch that we might try to meet it by providing for payments for dependents is a very attractive proposition. I suggest to him, however, that he should consider the consequences that might flow from that. He should realise that there is considerable reluctance on the part of trade unions to pursue that particular path at the moment unless we have much more protection so far as the code as a whole is concerned than we have in the existing Acts. He should realise that it is not a very simple problem just to suggest that we should provide additional payments for dependents. What he said with regard to the matter of single men as against married men is quite true. But, in an effort to relieve the intolerable position of the married man who has met with an injury, we might create other problems for the married man before he even meets with an injury or obtains employment.
We have got the position so far as the existing code is concerned that in certain trades the employment of men of a certain age has already become a problem, because by taking steps not to employ those aged men it is possible to cover the employers' liability at a lower figure than if you do not make certain provision with regard to the age of employees. The same thing occurs with regard to men working on the ground or aloft. We have to realise that we are not dealing directly with the employers either as individuals or a group. Behind the employers are those people who really determine in almost all cases the manner in which the provisions of the existing code will be applied to an injured workman, subject to the authority and the decision of the court. They are, of course, represented by the insurance companies who, as we have found to our cost, are the real difficulty in many of these cases.
If the Minister is going to consider some of the amendments that it is suggested will be brought in on the Committee Stage, I feel that he is going to create a problem for himself. If he undertakes to consider favourably some of those amendments, I fail to see how it will be possible to ensure that the immediate purpose of the Bill, namely to increase the benefit, is not defeated. If we try to deal with a defect here and a defect there, it is inevitable, unless we review the whole position, that we shall leave certain very large defects still existing and then we will be asked how it was we took certain steps to deal with certain defects in the Act and did not deal with others. There is no answer to that, because, if we are going to take steps to amend the code and remove certain defects, we should do it in a proper and fully considered manner.
We have to decide whether we are going to maintain the basis under the existing code or, alternatively, look for a new basis and a new approach. We have the present arrangement for the payment of compensation. There is a direct relationship between the individual workman and his employer. Are we going to depart from that and seek for a new basis of social insurance? All these matters give rise to major questions which cannot be disposed of in a matter of weeks. The immediate problem facing an individual workman requires some easement in a matter of weeks. I suggest that, from the point of view of everyone in this House who is concerned with the welfare of the workman, we should concentrate on giving effect to the objective of this Bill so far as the weekly payments are concerned. If we feel that there are other major defects that require immediate treatment, then I think we should deal with them by bringing into this House, as quickly as possible and even by agreement between all parties, some form of Bill on which we can decide a principle that we are going to apply in regard to industrial injuries. I think it would be an extremely bad mistake on a Bill which was drafted for a particular purpose to deal hurriedly with that problem by introducing a number of amendments, no matter how important they may be. These are not matters which can be dealt with simply by amendments. No matter how carefully the amendments might be drafted, I do not think it would be wise to discuss them now on this Bill which, as I have said, has been introduced for a particular purpose.
Deputy Lynch referred to the problem of compulsory insurance. He pointed out some of the difficulties that would arise in connection with it. We have another difficulty in certain cases relating to a very large number of workers in this city. They are actually insured and have no quarrel with their employers. The latter have paid out a sum of about £3,000 over the last five or six years. In return for that a sum of about £500 by way of payment has been made by insurance companies. Now this whole group of workers discover that they are completely outside the scope of the Act over a technicality. I mention that as one of the problems that exist. I have carefully considered this problem, and I suggest that the important thing for us to do now is to try and tackle it. It should have been tackled years ago. It is more important for us to do that than to try and change now our whole approach to this problem of industrial insurance or to decide what form of social insurance we should have, whether, if the present system is not acceptable we should find an entirely different basis on which to build up our whole code of law in regard to industrial insurance.
These are all major questions that will need to be dealt with later. At the moment it is urgent that an injured workman should receive some improvement in the existing miserable weekly amount. That is so urgent that I suggest to those Deputies who have already spoken urging an amplification of this measure that we should concentrate on the single objective of the Bill, and at a later stage try and deal with the bigger problems that are involved in the question of compensation.
From the point of view of the Labour Party and of the trade unions, I realise that it is not pleasant that we have not got the opportunity at this stage of bringing in the type of Bill that we think is necessary. The difficulties that we have to face are such that we have had to make a choice between trying to achieve an immediate and urgent object and, on the other hand, of postponing it. We hope that the House will soon have time to deal with this problem on a wider basis, either by having a completely new code or alternatively, a comprehensive social insurance scheme. So far as the trade union movement is concerned, the existing code is one that in their view does not merit further consideration. They are in favour of an entirely new approach to the problem.
I hope that the Minister will find it possible to get this Bill through the House rapidly and so make the appointed day as early as possible, thereby making the benefits under it available to those concerned at the earliest possible moment. I hope that he will soon be able to bring before the House a Bill formulated on a completely new approach to this problem. We may take it that this Bill is definitely committed to the principle of social insurance, and that we are going to get away from the basis of the present system. It is the insurance companies and not the injured who derive the principal benefit from our present system.