Vol. 113 No. 11
Item No. 3 on the Order Paper, the Money Resolution, is not moved. It is not necessary as there is no direct public expense involved.
The three amendments to the Bill, as handed in, cannot be moved. The Deputies in whose names they are have been notified that they are not in order.
Are all the amendments ruled out of order?
Yes. I said at the outset that all the Deputies who handed in amendments were notified by the Chair that those amendments are out of order because they are outside the scope of the measure. Deputies cannot introduce an amendment on the Committee Stage which will enlarge the scope of the Bill, and the effect of these amendments would be to enlarge the scope of the measure.
I understood that this Bill was dealing with the Workmen's Compensation Act——
I cannot allow the Deputy to open a discussion on the ruling of the Chair. The Deputy has been notified that his amendment is out of order.
May I ask the Minister if he proposes to take all Stages now, or if there is any hope before the Report Stage that he will consider the amendments which now have been ruled out of order?
The Minister has no power in that connection unless he extends the scope of the Bill.
The Minister could do that if he desired.
Not after the Bill has been read a Second Time. On the Second Reading the scope of the Bill is fixed. If the Minister wants to introduce the amendments he will have to withdraw this Bill, introduce another and get for it a Second Reading.
The purpose of this Bill is merely to step-up the maximum rate of workmen's compensation from 37/6 to 50/-. If the Emergency Powers Act were in operation that could be done by making an Order, but the Emergency Powers Act is not now operating and there is no authority to do it under the Supplies and Services Act. Therefore, it was necessary to introduce this amendment of the main Act of 1934. The amendment is confined merely to raising the weekly compensation. That represents the scope of the Bill. There are many blemishes in the main Act with which I would like to deal, but I cannot do so now.
Notwithstanding the ruling of the Chair with regard to these amendments being out of order, may I take it that the Minister can accept amendments such as have been submitted by some Deputies, including myself?
No. I have endeavoured to point out that the Second Stage fixes the scope of the measure. The amendments that were submitted would enlarge that scope and therefore they are out of order and cannot be moved. If the Minister wishes to accept the amendments he would have to introduce another Bill and have it read a Second Time—that is, if he wishes to enlarge the scope of the Bill.
Could he have done that during the Second Stage of this Bill?
He could not.
I put it to the Minister that he should consider other aspects of the Bill that need amendment just as much as the particular aspects he has included in this measure.
Would the Minister be prepared to consider introducing a Bill that would conform with the amendments that have been submitted?
I understood a LeasChinn Comhairle that the principle to be observed with regard to amendments in the Committee Stage was not to impose an extra charge on the Exchequer, and that the enlargement of the scope of the Bill to which you have adverted referred to the imposition of such a charge.
No, the Deputy is on a wrong line. No Deputy is entitled to move an amendment imposing a charge on public funds. That can be done only by a member of the Government. As regards the scope of the Bill, that is fixed on the Second Reading.
On the Fifth Stage, is a Deputy entitled to advocate the enlargement of the scope of the Bill?
No, you must deal only with what is in the Bill.
He is confined to what is in the Bill?
The position is that on the Second Stage one may refer to matters that are outside the Bill, but on the Fifth Stage one must confine oneself to what is in the Bill.
The Chair did not expect all this examination.
In case the Minister does not accede to my request about introducing a Bill along the lines set out in these amendments, or at least the amendment that I have sponsored, would it be possible for the sponsors of these amendments to take such steps as they deem wise to have such a measure introduced?
There is always the possibility of a Deputy introducing a Bill.
There is nothing to prevent the Minister dealing on the he Fifth Stage with whatever principles are involved in the amendments that have been submitted.
Perhaps the Minister will tell us what he proposes to do?
It has been ruled by the Chair that these amendments are not in order, and I take it the Chair was actuated in coming to that decision by the fact that the principle in this Bill is merely to step up the weekly rate of compensation. It does not propose in any other way to deal with the variety of flows and blemishes contained in the 1934 Act. On the Second Stage we had considerable criticism of the imperfections of the Act of 1934. I was not responsible for that Act. I know there are blemishes in it; even the Minister responsible for its introduction was not prepared to defind it in the light of experience. It certainly calls for a remedy, and that will be found in due course.
This amending Bill seeks merely to step up the weekly rate of compensation payable to persons who will meet with accidents after the enactment of this measure.
An Ceann Comhairle took the Chair.
That is the sole purpose of the Bill and the Chair has ruled that anything not dealing with the narrow issue of setting up weekly rates of compensation in the form set out in the Bill is contrary to the principle of the Bill as passed on the Second Stage. I have no responsibility for that. It is the decision of the Chair and I am as much bound by it as any Deputy in the House. May I say this to Deputy Lynch, if permitted to do so by the Chair? Deputy Lynch submitted an amendment the effect of which would be that not only would a single workman get compensation at the rate of 50/- per week, but that if he were married, a sum of 14/- should be paid in respect of his wife and that a further sum of 10/- should be paid if the injured workman had two or more children. I do not know whether Deputy Lynch appreciated the full significance of that but, if his colleague Deputy Corry were sitting beside him, he would. Let me tell the Deputy what would happen under the amendment if it were possible to discuss it. There is always the risk that an employer who wants to carry his own risks in respect of workmen's compensation, may try to keep these risks down to a minimum. If Deputy Lynch's amendment were carried he could do that and do it effectively by recruiting only single men and not recruiting married men, especially married men who had children, because they would be bigger liabilities. I am attracted to the principle of making provision for a married man but not under the present pattern of workmen's compensation because I cannot protect the married workman.
Has the Minister not some way of imposing restrictions on the power of insurance companies to charge increased premiums in the case of married men?
The Deputy's Party looked at the balance sheet of insurance companies for 16 years and they did nothing about it.
What about the man who carries his own risk?
There is no provision in the 1934 Act to compel an employer to insure, with the result that an employer if he is compelled to pay certain high rates by an insurance company, will carry his own risk. Again a sense of self-protection will induce him to make the risk as light as possible. He would make the risk as light as possible under Deputy Lynch's amendment by employing only single men.
On a point of order, if the Minister is allowed to put up arguments against amendments that were ruled out of order, there does not seem to be any just reason why Deputy Lynch should not be allowed to argue his point of view.
There is an essential difference. If an amendment is put down, there may be a vote on it but in this case there is no question of a vote. The point was raised in the discussion on the Second Stage and the Minister is probably putting up an argument in answer to what was said on the Second Stage.
He is arguing on Deputy Lynch's amendment which was ruled out of order.
The Deputy is quite clear that it is not the same thing to allow an amendment to be discussed and to allow a reference to it?
He is putting up arguments against it.
At the request of Deputy Lynch.
I understood that Deputy Lynch wanted an answer to it.
I put a specific question; if the Minister saw that the differentiation in compensation paid to married men and single men would lead to increased rates, could he not impose some restriction on insurance companies to make them keep to the same premium for married men and single men?
With the utmost goodwill in the world, I have no power to interfere with the rates of premium charged by insurance companies. That may be done by another Minister but let me say this to the Deputy. I have great sympathy with the point of view he is ventilating but I think he is ventilating it at the wrong time and the wrong place. I think he does not appreciate that he playing with fire by this amendment. Let us see what would happen if the Deputy's amendment were carried. Let us take the case of an agricultural worker with a wage of £3. Under this amendment he would get 45/- as workmen's compensation, an additional 14/- for his wife and 10/- additional if he had two or more children, allowing him a total compensation at the rate of 69/- per week while he is ill, although he was paid only 60/- while he was working. The farmer who employs him will have to pay that 69/-. If Deputy Lynch discussed this amendment going home on the train with Deputy Corry, I do not imagine that the atmosphere in the carriage would be very cordial. I do not imagine that Deputy Lynch wants to do that but that is what would happen if his amendment were carried. I hope, however, in other circumstances under a State scheme, the principle of this amendment can be accepted without bringing in all these other difficulties.
The Minister may not now develop that.
I am quite satisfied. As to the point raised by Deputy Dr. Brennan and Deputy Dr. Maguire, they sought by an amendment to provide that medical practitioners would have the right to go to court and there seek payment for any services which they rendered to workmen who were entitled to benefits under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Previously the maximum rate which they could get in such cases was £5, but under the amendment submitted by Deputy Dr. Brennan and Deputy Dr. Maguire there was to be no maximum. The sky was to be the limit.
No.
These amendments were refused and we are now on the Fifth Stage.
I intervened only on invitation, and at the invitation of the Chair too.
At the invitation of the Deputy.
The Chair invited me to intervene. I agree that the occupancy of the Chair has since changed.
If the Deputy concerned asked for an explanation——
Both Deputies wanted to know when I was bringing in another Bill.
On the Fifth Stage, the House may only debate what is in the Bill. I refused to allow these amendments to be put forward to the Bill.
It is by invitation of the Chair that I intervened. As I said before there are many blemishes in the 1934 Act.
And in this one, too.
I am sorry the steppingup of compensation has annoyed Deputy Allen so much.
Not in the least.
You would not blame the poor fellow.
If we were removing all the blemishes of the 1934 Act as they affect doctors, lawyers and workmen, a Bill of this kind would not see the light of day for 12 months, but it is at least possible to deal with the urgent question, to give the workman a reasonable increase on his present rate. It is to effect that purpose that I have introduced this Bill. Doctors may have a grievance under the 1934 Act. All these grievances will be examined and I hope, at a later stage, to be able to introduce a comprehensive amendment of the Act which will remove these blemishes. To try to do so now would be to postpone this urgent measure, the sole purpose of which is to fix reasonable compensation for people who are living on rates of benefit which at present are not adequate.
I should like to assure the Minister that we had no intention of postponing in any way the benefits under the Act.
Mr. Allen rose.
The Minister has concluded.
The Minister was not called upon to conclude.
He had no right to intervene otherwise.
The Minister intervened to answer a question asked by Deputy Lynch and he took advantage——
If the Deputy has a question, he may ask it.
I wish to speak on the Bill.
The Minister spoke only after Deputies Kissane, Lynch, Dr. Maguire and Dr. Brennan.
Deputies Kissane, Lynch, Dr. Maguire and Dr. Brennan did not get an opportunity of speaking.
For some appreciable period there was complete silence in the House and no one rose to speak.
I assumed that the Minister was concluding when he was making his speech.
The Minister will admit that he was not concluding. He intervened on a point of explanation.
I do not think there was any need for me to make a Fifth Stage speech at all. The Chair was going to put the question "That the Bill do now pass." I intervened at the request of the Chair, but normally, there was nothing to intervene about.
There were no Fifth Stage speeches on it.
I had something to say on it.
The question is: "That the Bill do now pass."
Agreed.
On that,—
It has been agreed that the Bill do now pass.
It is quite plain that the Deputies on this side of the House have been jockeyed out of the opportunity of speaking.
The Minister, when I came in, was speaking, and he has no right to speak twice, except he is concluding.
I want to protest that the Minister was not called upon to conclude. He intervened to answer a question asked by Deputy Lynch and was not concluding. The Minister will admit that.
