On Thursday last, 31st March, I asked the Minister for Social Welfare the following Parliamentary Question:—
"To ask the Minister for Social Welfare whether he is aware that the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1948, has caused much disappointment in its operation in so far as many recipients of workmen's compensation have failed to derive any benefit by way of increased compensation, under the Act; and, if so, what action he proposes in the matter."
The Minister replied by saying that a few cases had been brought to his notice and then he went on—quite irrelevantly, in my submission—to say that Section 7 of the 1948 Act extended existing legislation in the matter of giving the court power to increase or diminish the weekly payments to injured workmen, on it being proved, amongst other things, that there was a fluctuation in wages. In order to put the Minister on the right track, I instanced three cases in which the 1948 Act did not benefit recipients of compensation at all or only to a limited extent.
The first case was one where workmen were in receipt of pre-accident earnings of 50/- or less. These people received no added benefit under the 1948 Act. The second case was of people who were in receipt of compensation based on partial incapacity. These people were not benefited either under the 1948 Act. The third case was of people whose earnings ranged between 50/- and £3-6-8. These people benefited only to a limited extent under the 1948 Act. In reply to that question, the Minister—again apparently failing to see my point—referred me to Section 7 of the 1948 Act. I may point out here, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, that under Section 25 of the 1934 Act, if a workman on going to court could prove that there was a fluctuation in the rate of wages that he was receiving at the time of his accident, on fulfilling certain other conditions he had a right to get from the court an Order increasing his compensation. This applied to adults or infant employees. The employer had a corresponding right to reduce the compensation in the event of a fluctuation in wages by way of decrease.
However, the interpretation of the courts on those sections was that, unless there was a prior Order of the court giving the workmen compensation or unless he was receiving it under an agreement registered in the court, Section 25 of the 1934 Act did not apply; so in the new Act of 1948, Section 7 was introduced to overcome this defect. It provided that, even where people were receiving compensation without an Order of the court or without a registered agreement, they could go before the court and, on proving that their wages had increased by a certain amount, the court could increase their compensation.
In reply to my Supplementary Question, the Minister again referred to that particular section. In order to get the Minister's mind off that Section 7, I instanced cases again where persons in receipt of compensation could not get relief. These were cases of people whose pre-accident earnings were 50/- or less and who in the meantime could not prove to the satisfaction of the court that the rate of wages in their particular grade of employment had increased to an extent sufficient to meet either Section 25 of the 1934 Act or Section 7 of the new Act. Even though Section 7 could in no way apply to such cases, the Minister again pinned his faith to this particular section and side-stepped the issue I put before him. I say that he deliberately side-stepped the issue, either in order to boost his own Act, failing to see its difficulties, or because he failed to see the point I was raising. I am strengthened in that idea because, in the course of his reply to my first Supplementary Question, he used the following words:—
"The Deputy apparently does not realise the potentialities of Section 7 of the 1948 Act, and, if he gets some legal advice, he will find that these people can recover a greater rate of compensation than he or some of those for whom he speaks appear to realise."