Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Dec 1952

Vol. 135 No. 8

Private Deputies' Business. - Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Bill, 1952—Second Stage.

Mr. Norton

I move that the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is described as the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Bill, 1952. The object of the Bill is to provide increases in the weekly compensation payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act and also to provide for an increased payment in respect of the lump sum payable to an adult dependent or to an adult dependent and children. Before proceeding further, I should perhaps explain that the Labour Party does not regard the present legislation in respect of workmen's compensation as either adequate or satisfactory to the needs of the situation.

The present workmen's compensation legislation, which was originally enacted in order to enable compensation to be secured with a minimum of complexity has, in our opinion, in fact developed to such an extent that the law governing workmen's compensation has become far too involved and far too complex, not only for those who have counsel on either side, but also exceptionally so in respect of the unfortunate injured party. Not only is the law far too complex and involved, but it has proved to be extremely costly so far as the injured party is concerned. I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that, in a great many cases, the injured party, maimed in the course of his employment, without any income whatever in the form of wages and with a wife and children dependent upon him, is frequently the victim of the grip of hunger and that is often used ruthlessly against him in order to compel a settlement under the Act, a settlement which in no sense bears the hallmark of justice from the standpoint of the injured worker.

In our view the workmen's compensation code ought to form part of our general social welfare code. It should be a comprehensive piece of legislation built into the existing social welfare code and it should be administered by the State on a non-profit making basis. There should be simplification of the procedure for recovering compensation. There should be a minimum of hardship and inconvenience imposed on the injured workman in securing his rights under workmen's compensation legislation. Much, however, as we desire the complete reform of this legislation, it will be recognised by the House that complete reform would require major legislation of a kind which is beyond the power of any Opposition Party, having regard to the rules of order.

This Bill, therefore, recognises two things. First, amendment is urgently necessary and, secondly, pending the introduction of more comprehensive legislation in respect of the payment of compensation to injured workmen and their dependents we should proceed to revise the existing scales of compensation so as to ensure that they will be brought within reasonable compass of present day needs.

This Bill is limited to an amendment, or amendments of the Acts of 1934 and 1948. It might be well to explain at this stage that so far as weekly compensation is concerned the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1934 provided a weekly maximum compensation of 30/-. That was the maximum rate prevailing from 1934 until 1943 when, under stress of a substantial increase in the cost of living, an Emergency Powers Order was made which had the effect of adding 7/6 to the basic compensation of 30/- per week, making a total maximum compensation payable of 37/6 per week.

In 1948 the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act was introduced. That provided, amongst other things, for raising the weekly compensation from 37/6 to 50/- per week, at the same time raising the ceiling for workmen's compensation payments to those whose salary did not exceed £500 per annum provided they were in the non-manual classes. Where the workman is in what is described as a manual class no such ceiling is enforced against him from the standpoint of his right to recover compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

We have the position that under the 1948 Act the maximum compensation payable was 50/- per week. Since 1948 there have been three rounds of wage increases in industry generally and, in fact, in virtually all classes of employment. In 1948 we had a general round of wage increases measured by an increase of approximately 11/- per week. In 1950-51 there was a second round of wage increases in which the increases granted varied from 10/- to £1 per week. In 1952, the present year, the pattern of increases is working out in the vicinity of 12/6 per week. In some cases it is slightly less. In others it is more. The position in relation to compensation, however, is that since the House fixed compensation at 50/- per week in 1948 we have clear and unquestionable evidence of three rounds of wage increases in relation to workers generally, but, notwithstanding the fact that workers generally have received these increases that has had no effect whatever in the determination of compensasion to which large numbers of injured workmen are entitled and they are still governed by the ceiling of 50/- per week fixed under the 1948 Act in the circumstances then prevailing.

It is proposed in this Bill to accord recognition to the fact that there has been a substantial increase in wage levels since 1948, that these increases have not been taken into consideration in determining a workman's right to increased benefit over and above the 1948 rate and that, in the circumstances of to-day, it is urgently necessary to raise the level of weekly compensation from a maximum of 50/- to a maximum of 90/- per week.

The present workmen's compensation code — that is, the 1934 Act with the 1948 Act impacted on it — provides that an insured workman, where his remuneration exceeds £1 per week, will receive workmen's compensation at the rate of 75 per cent. of his average earnings subject to a maximum of 50/-per week. This Bill proposes that he will receive 75 per cent. of his wages subject to a maximum of 90/- per week. It will be clear, therefore, to the House that in order to receive the compensation at the rate of 90/- per week in respect of injuries arising out of his employment or sustained in the course of his employment, the workman would, in fact, have to receive, prior to the accident, an average wage of not less than £6 per week. If he earned less than £6 per week he would not get a maximum of 90/- per week but a maximum of something else — the something else being determined by the fact that 75 per cent. of his earnings would not give him 90/- per week in compensation where his weekly pay was less than £6 per week. I do not think it is necessary to say to the House that 90/- per week is not excessive compensation in the circumstances of to-day. Indeed, I could make a case — and so could my colleagues and so, I am sure, could other members of the House— for the payment of a weekly rate of compensation higher than 90/- per week in the case of persons who, when injured, suffer a substantial diminution of their wages in consequence of their absence from work due to injury.

I think I need do no better for the purpose of illustrating the efficacy of my argument than remind the House that it now takes 45/- to buy what £1 bought in 1939, and that it now takes 90/- to buy what £2 bought in 1939. Nobody would suggest in 1939 — particularly in that year, which is the datum year for the purpose of these calculations — that to pay an injured workman £2 per week when he sustained injury in the course of his employment is to pay an excessive rate of compensation. The basic rate provided in the 1934 Act was 30/- per week. There were wage advances between 1934 and 1939 and these would probably have brought a mathematical adjustment of the 30/- payable under the 1934 Workmen's Compensation Act to a basic maximum of approximately £2 in 1939 if wages and prices were adjusted during the intervening years. This Bill asks the House to increase the maximum compensation payable to an insured workman from 50/- per week to 90/- per week. If this figure of 90/- errs in any direction at all it errs on the side of being excessively reasonable.

The Bill deals also with the payment of lump sum compensation in the case of fatal injuries. It provides for an increase in the amount of compensation to an adult dependent in the case of fatal injuries and to an adult and other dependents where there are other dependents apart from the single dependent adult. Under the 1934 Act, the maximum compensation payable to the adult dependent of a workman who lost his life in the course of his employment was £300 — one sum of £300. If the workman had one child or ten children the maximum compensation payable was £600. That was the position which the Legislature felt was, according to its concepts, reasonable compensation in 1934. Quite clearly, if the Legislature thought £300 and £600 in these two categories of cases was reasonable compensation in the circumstances of 1934, they cannot be pleaded as constituting reasonable compensation in the circumstances of 1952 — 18 years later — when the prices of commodities have soared enormously in the meantime.

I think it is hardly necessary to emphasise in 1952 that rates of compensation fixed at £300 and £600 in 1934 represent inadequate compensation to-day. It will at once be apparent to the House that to pay £300 as a single and final payment to the adult dependent of a workman who loses his life is inadequate compensation. To imagine that £600 is adequate compensation for a widow with any number of children, where the breadwinner loses his life in the course of his employment, is to suggest something outrageously unreasonable.

I read in the newspapers last week of a case which came before the court in Cork. The next-of-kin of a workman who lost his life in the course of his employment — his widow — brought an action for compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The widow went before the courts and told them that the breadwinner had been killed in the course of his employment, that she was left with nine children to rear, and that the children were all young. The court awarded the maximum compensation that it could award — £600. That was the paltry allowance which that unfortunate widow was given to try and fight a battle through life for herself and her nine young children. It needs little elaboration from me to depict the plight of that widow with nine young children, trying to feed them, to clothe them, to educate them, and to protect them against all the rigours and trials of life until they reach adolescence and manhood. All that has to be done on a paltry sum of £600 workmen's compensation originally determined in 1934.

I hope, therefore, that the House will recognise that, in seeking to increase the compensation from £300 to £900 in one instance, and to increase the overall compensation from £600 to £1,800, this Bill is seeking to do only what changes in living costs and wage and salary standards have necessitated. Even the new compensation of a maximum of £1,800 payable to a widow left in the circumstances of the Cork widow with nine children is not to put the compensation at any unreasonable figure.

The Bill makes two other amendments. It seeks to raise the present income limit for non-manual classes from £500 per annum as the salary or wage ceiling to £800 per annum. This adjustment is doing nothing more than moving the ceiling upwards in accordance with the wage and salary movements which have taken place since £500 was declared to be the new ceiling under the 1948 Act.

There is one other amendment and it is a vital amendment from the point of view of the injured workman. At this stage, perhaps I ought to explain the position under the 1934 Act. Where workmen's compensation is accepted by a workman from an employer the law, I think, says that a workman is debarred from taking an action at common law where he has accepted compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, but the whole case law which has been build up under the workmen's compensation code has been built on the basis that where the workman could show to the court that he was not aware that the claim by him to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act would debar him from making a claim at common law, the courts have always given the benefit of the doubt to the injured workman and have allowed him to make a claim at common law where it was shown that he had an action against the employer for negligence under the common law code. Recently, however, the Supreme Court decided that once a workman accepted compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, he could not sue his employer under common law no matter how negligent the employer might be. Thus you might well have a situation under which a workman met with an accident to-day and his employer might say: "All right, I shall pay you workmen's compensation next week"; and once the man received one payment of workmen's compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, he could take no further action against the employer in common law, no matter how negligent the employer had been.

That decision by the Supreme Court is one which, if allowed to stand, will impose very great hardship on injured workmen, particularly injured workmen who are not aware of their rights in the matter, and it might well expose them to the danger that those who cover the risk of injury in respect of such workmen may seek to have workmen's compensation almost foisted on the injured workman, as the best means of stopping an action at common law, particularly if the employer is likely to be compelled to pay heavy compensation because of negligence on his part. Since the Supreme Court decision has been given, cases have come to light where action at common law could not be taken because the workmen concerned had accepted compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I think if the Minister makes inquiries into the matter, he will find that, among the legal profession, there is grave disquiet at this decision which, for the first time for a long period, has put the injured workman at a serious disadvantage before the courts and at a serious disadvantage as far as his rights at common law are concerned. This Bill seeks to remedy that situation by the provisions of Section 8. I would hope that the section, as now framed, would, in its obvious justice, appeal to the House sufficiently to ensure its enactment in this Bill.

Summing up on this Bill, recognising that a comprehensive remedy for the defects in the workmen's compensation code requires major legislation, and since it is only possible for an Opposition Party to introduce certain amendments, I think it will be agreed that the proposals in the Bill are reasonable and modest. I would ask all sides of the House, concerned as they must be with the well-being of the injured workman, to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. Hickey

I second the motion and reserve my right to speak later.

Mr. O'Higgins

On behalf of the Fine Gael Party, I should like to welcome the Bill and to congratulate Deputy Norton and those associated with him on the introduction of the Bill. I do not think any words of mine can improve on the case that has been made for the Bill by Deputy Norton. It is an unfortunate fact that our method of providing statutory compensation for injured workers must entail a review from time to time. The first Workmen's Compensation Act was passed as early as 1906. It received its first review by our parent statute, the statute of 1934, which, as Deputy Norton has told the House, provided for a ceiling compensation of 30/-, based on the wage levels then obtaining in the country. The further intermediate improvement, provided by the Emergency Powers Order of 1943, led to the 1948 Bill which was introduced by Deputy Norton as Minister for Social Welfare and that Bill provided for a ceiling of 50/-. I am not quite certain whether the ceiling now proposed of 90/- is an adequate ceiling, so far as industrial workers generally are concerned. I can see the case being made for a man in receipt of a wage of some £8 or £9, that a weekly compensation less than half his wages is not adequate compensation but, of course, so far as the vast bulk of employed persons are concerned, I am quite satisfied that the present ceiling is adequate to meet their claims and it may be, as Deputy Norton has said, that the ceiling figure suggested in the Bill is more than reasonable.

I was glad to see the introduction in the Bill of the much-needed amendment with regard to fatal accident lump sums. At the time that the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1948 was passing through the House, other Deputies and I pressed Deputy Norton as Minister, to provide for some increase in the lump sum payable in the event of a fatal accident. I do not know why it was not then done. I was never satisfied with the reasons given for not doing it, and I am glad that in this Bill it is proposed to bring about that much-needed reform. Everyone who has had an experience of workmen's compensation litigation can readily understand the appalling injury that is caused when, through some unfortunate accident, a husband, the head of a family, is killed, and all of us can well sympathise with the inability of the judge, trying the workmen's compensation case, to provide anything more than the maximum at present payable under the Act, of £300 to the adult dependents and, if there are juvenile dependents qualifying. £300 also in their case. I do not think it is necessary to emphasise to the House that a total sum of £600 in the case of a large family is not adequate in present circumstances.

I feel that I am perhaps largely repeating, but not so well, the speech made by Deputy Norton. I would, however, like to avail of this Bill to suggest to the Minister if the principle of it is acceptable to the Government — and for the life of me I cannot see why it should not — it could well be availed of to provide other necessary amendments and reforms in relation to the workmen's compensation code. One very necessary amendment is provided in Section 8 of this Bill which deals with the position of involuntary election under the Workmen's Compensation Act. As Deputy Norton has informed the House, the present code has been construed to mean, in application to particular cases, that an injured workman who, in ignorance of his rights, is paid and accepts any sum as compensation, is for all time debarred from taking independent proceedings against his employer. That has resulted in very serious injury and hardship to injured workmen.

Deputies will appreciate, I am sure, that in ordinary circumstances no workman has a right of action against his employer, that is, a right of action at common law unless there is some personal negligence on the part of the employer — some unsafe plant or machinery or some matter of that kind. That is dealt with in the first of these Acts, the Employers' Liability Act of 1881.

Now, when that kind of negligence is established, the workman who is injured can look forward to securing from a judge or a jury at common law far in excess of the statutory compensation provided under the workmen's compensation code. Naturally, when the Act of 1934, which is our parent statute, was passed, it had to deal with a situation in which a workman had a double remedy: the right to proceed under the Workmen's Compensation Act for a weekly sum as compensation, or the right to undergo the hazards of a common law action and the recovery of a lump sum in compensation. The Act of 1934 laid down in Section 65, I think, that such a workman, having both rights, was entitled to proceed with both, but was not entitled to accept both weekly compensation and damages. The idea behind the section was quite clear, that an injured workman could take his proceedings under the Workmen's Compensation Act and his common law action and that, right up to the end, he was entitled to decide which he would go ahead with, but that once he received either damages in his common law action or workmen's compensation, then he was held to have elected, and that was the end of it. Now, the meaning or the good sense behind the section was quite clear, but the wording, unfortunately, was not clear enough.

Take the case of a workman who is injured. In some cases that I know of, without having an opportunity of consulting a solicitor, a workman, injured at his employment, with dependents at home, for whom he has to provide food and having no income because his wages are stopped, is visited by the local insurance agent. In no time he receives what he needs, a sum of money to provide food for his family, and for that sum of money he is asked to sign a receipt. It is quite understandable that he should sign the receipt. In a couple of months' time, when he proceeds to bring his common law action, he finds that the receipt he signed was a receipt for workmen's compensation, and he is then informed by the court, as it must inform him, that he has thereby elected to dispense with his common law action and to accept workmen's compensation only, because the Act says that he cannot accept both — that if he accepts one he cannot accept the other.

That is not a recent decision of the Supreme Court, as I think Deputy Norton said. It has been extended recently by the Supreme Court. That is the difficulty that has been facing legal practitioners and injured workmen for quite a number of years. I am not quite sure whether that decision was carried to the extreme of holding this notional election to apply in the case of an infant or a minor workman, but possibly it may go that far.

I am glad that the Bill proposes to deal with that situation. I would like to see in addition to the Bill — this is only my personal view — in the workmen's compensation code, a provision for the payment of a lump sum of compensation to be assessed by a judge on the consent of both employer and workman. I know there are many cases where perhaps a young workman for the rest of his life — where the incapacity in fact is partial and not permanent — is prevented from ever again engaging in useful, lucrative manual employment. I suggest that, in those circumstances, the weekly payment, even on the basis of total incapacity, is not as useful a method of compensating him as could be some lump-sum payment that would enable him to start a little business or some other method of earning a livelihood.

I know that in fact in most cases of that kind, after it has been determined by the court, a lump-sum settlement is arranged, but the amount of that settlement depends largely on the advice and ability of the legal representatives of the workmen and also on many other circumstances of that kind. It might be far better in these circumstances to give to the Circuit Court judge the power, on consent, to assess what would be a fair lump sum to pay to the injured workman.

I welcome the Bill. I think it is a measure that is very badly needed. I do not think that any Deputy can really oppose the proposals here made. We all realise that to-day every employer who is anyway prudent is idemnified against liability under the workmen's compensation code. That is a matter which should be considered, because the original provision in regard to workmen's compensation was long kept at a very low figure for fear of imposing too great a burden on employers of labour. There is now available to them a method of insuring against this risk, and it is, in fact, in general operation. I think that the proposals in this Bill are a very modest contribution towards the alleviation of a very real hardship in the case of injured workmen.

Mr. MacCarthy

We all agree that the compensation code should be amended and the compensation increased. I just rise to speak for one particular type of workers, the workers who have got compensation on the basis that they are considered capable of doing light work. These are the most tragic cases that I have met with in my experience. When a man who had been so adjudged goes back to his former employer, whether a big corporation or business or a small employer, looking for light work, he may only have an injured hand or a stiff elbow or an injured foot, but the employer in 99 cases out of 100 does not want to take the risk of giving him light work, fearing he may be injured again, or to give him employment where he need not exert the full powers which he formerly used. Such workers have their families to support. Their general health is good, and they are hoping to get some small employment as a night-watchman or something of that kind. Such opportunities are very rare. In considering this whole matter of compensation, the cases of such people should be taken into consideration, and until such time as they get light work or whatever other work may be available their compensation at the regular rate should continue. I have no desire to stress any of the other points raised. I just got up to raise that aspect of the matter.

Mr. MacBride

I should like to congratulate the Labour Party on their initiative in this matter. This Bill is one which, I am sure, will meet with the approval of every section of the House. It is good to see that, in matters of this kind, there can be a non-Party and objective approach for the purpose of dealing with reforms which are urgently needed. I am in complete agreement with every portion of the Bill. I need not repeat many of the things so ably said by Deputy Norton and by Deputy O'Higgins.

There is a good case for including on the Committee Stage a section which would cover the point raised by Deputy MacCarthy. The question of light work and of making provision for a workman who has been adjudged to be capable of light work and who has been unable to procure light work should be covered. I am sure the movers of the Bill will consider the inclusion on the Committee Stage of some section of that nature in the Bill.

As a lawyer I think I can say, with the approval of every lawyer in the country, that the amendment contained in Section 8 is one which is long overdue. We have all come across cases of grave injustice being done to workmen who have been seriously injured through the negligence of or breach of his statutory duty by their employer and are deprived of their right to full compensation because in the early stages they had accepted payments of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. As Deputy O'Higgins pointed out, these payments are made at a time when the injured worker is in hospital and very often unable even to appreciate the gravity of his injuries or of the situation. I may have to suggest one or two slight verbal amendments in the section which could be embodied in the Bill on the Committee Stage.

I would also ask the sponsors of the Bill to consider the possibility of altering Section 8 to some extent. The section still provides for this system of election by the injured workman as to whether he will proceed under the Workmen's Compensation Acts or proceed to his common law remedy. In practice, I see no reason why an injured workman should be put to any election. I think the only thing necessary to ensure is that he will not secure compensation twice over. I see no reason why an injured workman might not receive compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts with full knowledge of his common law right, provided that if he succeeds in his common law action payments made to him will be deducted from any compensation he may secure.

I think that that would be a much better position. It would permit in a number of cases an injured workman receiving payments under the Workmen's Compensation Acts until his common law claim was determined by the courts. In a great many cases it would mean that a workman who had been injured would receive weekly payments under the Workmen's Compensation Acts during the early stages of his injury until such time as it had been determined whether or not he had a common law claim. But there is no reason why he should be put to election at any stage. The only thing necessary is to see that he will not recover compensation twice for the same injury. It should be possible by some amendment of Section 8 to ensure that he would be entitled to certain payments under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, but that these payments would be deducted from any compensation arising out of any claim which he might successfully make in the courts. I again want to congratulate the initiative of the sponsors of this Bill and to say how glad I am to find that it has got a good reception including the reception which it received from the Government Party through its daily newspaper, the Irish Press.

Mr. A. Byrne

I wish also to congratulate heartily Deputy Norton on the masterly and calm way in which he put forward his case. It appealed, I think, to every member of the House, regardless of Party. I support the Bill. I came across a number of cases, even during this year, similar to those described by Deputy Norton. May I quote a case which recently took place, due to an accident which occurred on 18th August this year. We all read of a runaway horse which dragged its driver through Westmoreland Street and eventually the horse and cart went over the driver and he was taken to Jervis Street Hospital. If you will give me permission I will read the letter I received:

"Dear Alderman Byrne,

With reference to our conversation this morning my husband was employed as a horse and dray driver."

Captain Cowan

This is the typical "Alfie" Byrne tactics. Has it anything to do with the Bill?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Chair must allow Deputy Byrne to read at least part of the letter before any decision can be reached.

Captain Cowan

Would not Deputy Byrne tell us in how far this relates to the Bill before he reads it?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is what the Chair is trying to find out.

Captain Cowan

The Chair knows he will read the letter. It has nothing to do with the Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Byrne should be allowed to continue.

Captain Cowan

Let him go ahead and read it now.

Mr. A. Byrne

Deputy Cowan knows nothing about what is before the House. He has not been here since 3 o'clock to-day, as I was.

Captain Cowan

I was here all right.

Mr. A. Byrne

To continue with the letter:—

"He came on his holidays on Monday, 4th August, and on Saturday, 2nd August, he put the horses out on grass for a fortnight. On Saturday, 16th August, my husband went out to bring back the horses and on Monday, 18th August, returned to work in the best of health and came home to lunch about 2.10 p.m. At 6 p.m. the transport manager called to me to tell me that my husband had met with an accident in Westmoreland Street and I was to go to Jervis Street Hospital."

It might annoy Deputy Peadar Cowan if I read the balance of the letter.

Captain Cowan

No. You are annoying the rules of the House up to the moment.

Mr. A. Byrne

Anything I say or do annoys Deputy Peadar Cowan and it does not worry me. The lady goes on to say that her husband was removed to Jervis Street Hospital and that he died the same evening. She says: "I was awarded £300 compensation in court on the 4th November for the loss of my husband——"

Captain Cowan

What has this to do with the subject under discussion?

Mr. Davin

Ask Deputy Cowan to respect his superiors, that is, in the political sense.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Byrne must be allowed to speak without interruption.

Captain Cowan

Deputy Norton knows this has nothing to do with the Bill.

Mr. A. Byrne

It is an honour and a compliment to be interrupted or objected to by Deputy Cowan. The lady says that she was awarded £300 compensation although her husband's wages were £7 a week. That is one of the cases which Deputy Norton has made an appeal for, and I join with him in asking that when the Bill is passed the date might be made retrospective so as to include this woman who was dependent on her husband. She goes on to say: "He was a very steady and sober man and gave me all the help I needed." I want to add my voice to the appeal made by Deputy Norton and the other speakers for decent treatment for these people.

There is another case, which I think is known also to most members of the House, where a young man, with three or four children, met with an accident about two years ago in Seán MacDermott Street, when some sacks containing meal fell on him and injured his back. He was paid the sum of £2 10s. a week, I think, for the last two years, and neither the firm concerned nor the insurance company will increase the amount. He is, therefore, struggling to keep his family and to keep the rent clear.

I will go on a little further, because Deputy Norton did so, he said some of these companies and some of the employers, although I must say not all of them, did their best to starve out these men by forcing them to take half pay or the maximum amount for a long period, and then forcing them to make a settlement. When the notice to quit comes, because of heavy arrears of rent, these people are forced to make a settlement for £100 or so, whereas if they got a chance to go before a judge and jury they might get £1,000. I make this appeal on behalf of these people who, at a moment of serious want, accept the small sum of money that is offered to them by the representatives of the insurance company paying them the workmen's compensation. I do not think they should be at a disadvantage later; they should be able to go to court and ask a judge and jury to give them what they think they are entitled to.

I want also to refer to the type of case that Deputy MacCarthy very properly mentioned. That is the case where a man gets a doctor's certificate stating that he is fit for light work. This unfortunate man, seeing that his workmen's compensation, small as it is, is about to be stopped on him, takes the certificate for light work and goes along perhaps to the firm that employed him previously or some other firm.

He has not his full strength and the employer sees, as Deputy MacCarthy says, that he is not in good health. He is afraid to take the risk because he may not be a fully insurable person, and does not want to employ him much longer. I have known a case which occurred a year or two ago in which a man was certified as fit for light work. He was only back a month when he was dismissed, but in going back and proving that he was fit for light work he was not entitled to compensation when he was dismissed.

I appeal to the members of the House to give their support to this Bill, and I hope the Minister will accept the Bill as suggested by Deputy Norton.

Mr. Kyne

I expect it is natural that those of us who are trade union officials will have much more sympathy for a Bill of this kind than the average Deputy. I fear very much that the average Deputy here will look upon this measure in the erroneous belief that the majority of people who draw workmen's compensation do so as malingerers. It would be regrettable if any hasty decision was taken by the Deputies of this House against such a background. So that I might clear the minds of Deputies of a certain suspicion of that kind, I would draw their attention to this fact, that a workman has not the right to go to court so long as the insurance company elects to pay him his weekly compensation under the law.

Mr. O'Higgins

I think that was changed in 1948.

Mr. Kyne

I cannot agree with Deputy O'Higgins in that, because I have had experience in my capacity as a trade union official and I know many workmen who have been compelled to remain on indefinitely drawing the miserable pittance of 50/- per week despite the fact that they were more than anxious that their cases should be heard and fair compensation fixed so that they might return to even partial employment and help to provide for their families.

The insurance company has the right either to pay the award according to statute or have its case heard before a Circuit Court judge. I think it is important that Deputies should bear this fact in mind. Where it is possible — and that possibility is only at the will and pleasure of the insurance company — for these cases to come before the court, the vast majority have been proved to be genuine. It has been proved that, in the vast majority of cases, there is no malingering where workmen have been injured in the course of their employment.

Under the present compensation code, the weapon of hunger is used to force the injured workman to accept compensation even though he knows perfectly well that the compensation is unjust. He accepts because he realises that the insurance company can, if it so desires, continue to pay him the miserable pittance of 50/- per week for an indefinite period and he accepts against his better judgment and possibly against the advice of his solicitor compensation that is subsequently proved to be totally inadequate.

I know there are certain safeguards. I know that the national health insurance has the right to intervene and to object to such a settlement. The district justice has the right to refuse to record such a settlement. At the same time, I know that the justice places a good deal of reliance on the opinion of the worker himself, and so does the national health, as to whether or not the compensation is adequate for the injuries he received, because there are a number of injuries which will not be visible and the extent of their effect on the earning capacity of the worker will have to be mainly judged by the opinion of the worker himself.

It is because this Bill seeks to raise the ceiling to a reasonable figure that we are so much in support of it. We appeal to the Deputies on both sides, irrespective of Party, to support the measure. Deputy Norton has given figures demonstrating the comparative value of the compensation being received under the statute as against the background in 1939. It is true that other social welfare benefits, such as old age pensions, blind pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions and national health insurance have been increased in some measure since 1948. It is only fair that workmen's compensation should be stepped up to something more commensurate with the present level of the cost of living.

In relation to death benefit it is not the invariable practice that the dependent of the deceased receives the full benefit. Sometimes medical proof is necessary in order to secure the full death benefit in respect of a man killed during the course of his work. It is indeed very rarely that the dependents receive the full amount. I think Deputy O'Higgins gave an excellent example in support of the workers' choice either in common law or under the Workmen's Compensation Act; that is to say, that the worker having drawn workmen's compensation should have the right to go back and choose common law. I know that in the vast majority of cases when a workman is injured during the course of his employment invariably the employer sends him a certain sum of money with a form to sign and unless that worker knows something about the law or has a trade union official or a good solicitor to advise him he may be trapped into signing and subsequently discover that he has thereby abrogated his right to compensation under common law.

This Bill should be regarded merely as an interim measure since there is need for a comprehensive scheme of workmen's compensation. Whether that scheme should be tied up with other types of insurance is a matter that can be discussed later. As an interim measure this Bill merits the approval of all those who are interested in the rights of workmen in securing justice under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Captain Cowan

Deputy Kyne has very sincerely expressed his views in relation to this particular code. I am sure that Deputy Norton, although I did not hear him speak, was actuated entirely by motives of sincerity and by a desire to help unfortunate people injured in the course of their employment, when he was introducing this Bill this evening. I did interrupt a fellow Deputy from my own constituency, Deputy Alfred Byrne, who in every discussion that takes place here produces a letter he has received from somebody.

Mr. Davin

And he was right on this occasion anyway.

Captain Cowan

He does produce a letter that he has received from somebody, a letter which has nothing to do with the case.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is a matter solely for the Chair to decide.

Captain Cowan

I am aware of that, but I am saying that it has nothing to do with the case. It may be within the bounds of relevancy but it has nothing to do with the case. Deputy Byrne comes along with this particular letter to the effect that a person only received £300. We know what is the law. It has been the law for a long time and Deputy Byrne has done nothing about it. We know Deputy Byrne from many aspects. Those of us who have followed his career, in so far as we can——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

We are not discussing the career of Deputy Byrne. We are discussing the Bill.

Captain Cowan

I was going to refer to the flooding in Drumcondra when he always had arrangements made to provide blankets for the unfortunate people who were flooded out. I know that that has nothing to do with the case. If I were the Lord Mayor of Dublin, as he was——

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

God forbid.

Captain Cowan

——I should have stopped the flooding or provided houses for the people.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with the case.

Captain Cowan

I admit that that is so. When one hears these letters read out at every debate, one gets rather annoyed with him — and, of course, he is not here: he has gone with the wind.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

That is a habit the Deputy has, too.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on the Bill.

Captain Cowan

Deputy Norton has introduced this Bill and it has considerable merits. It has as many merits now as it might have had last year, the year before or the year before that again. I agree that this maximum of £600 is entirely inadequate. I think it is a scandalous amount to be paid to a widow with a family whose breadwinner has been killed in an accident in the course of and during his employment. I agree that the amount of compensation that is being paid, a sum of £2 10s. a week — it was originally 30/-; it was increased by Emergency Order to 37s. 6d., and it is now £2 10s. — is entirely inadequate. I have always stated that where a person is injured during and in the course of his employment he ought to be entitled to receive a sum equivalent to his earnings at the time of his injury. Deputy Norton does not even advocate that in this Bill but I will go so far as to advocate it, because I think it is only right that it should be done.

Let us, however, get down to the history of this matter. When a person, in the ordinary way, was injured during and in the course of his employment he was entitled to no compensation whatsoever — and many people lost a foot or a leg or an arm or a finger in the course of his or her employment. It might have been due to the negligence of a fellow-servant, but, under the law as it stood, the injured person was entitled to nothing.

The Workmen's Compensation Act was originally brought in for the purpose of establishing that where a person was injured during and in the course of his employment — whether or not it was due to the negligence of a fellow-servant — he would not be left high and dry but would be entitled to a certain weekly sum in compensation. If, in similar circumstances, he was killed, his widow would be entitled to a lump sum. If she had children the maximum amount to be paid would be £600 and that sum would be reduced, depending on whether or not she had children, to £300 — the sum Deputy Byrne mentioned here to-night. One must understand the fundamentals of the Workmen's Compensation Act when one comes to consider that matter.

I am perfectly certain that during the three and a half years that Deputy Norton was Minister for Social Welfare he must, as a trade unionist, have been pressed very strongly by members of the trade unions in regard to the subject of workmen's compensation, and even if he was never pressed, Deputy Norton must have realised himself, as a person actively concerned with trade unions and as the general secretary of one of them that the compensation provided under the law of this country was entirely inadequate. I am perfectly certain that Deputy Norton must have realised that some adjustment in the law was necessary.

Under workmen's compensation the employer insures himself against risks because the employer is responsible if an employee is injured during and in the course of his employment. Under the law as it stands at the moment, an injured employee would be entitled to compensation at the rate of £2 10s. per week. Originally, under the Workmen's Compensation Act, it was 30/-per week and that was subsequently increased to £1 17s. 6d. a week. I am perfectly satisfied that Deputy Norton realised that for a person who was earning a reasonably good wage and who was injured without any fault of his own during and in the course of his employment £2 10s. a week was entirely inadequate. I am perfectly certain that in the circumstances related by Deputy Byrne, where a worker lost his life, Deputy Norton was satisfied that £300 was an entirely inadequate lump sum to pay. I am also perfectly certain that Deputy Norton must have used all the influence he could and had to try and improve that situation and to try and increase both the weekly payments and the amount that should be paid on death. I could speak, if I wanted to speak, of many cases which have come to my knowledge, as they have come to the knowledge of Deputies of this House, of very severe hardship imposed on the widow of a breadwinner and on the family of a breadwinner — on the widow in the case of his death and on the family in the case of his injury— through these inadequate sums that are paid under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

For the past 20 years — since 1934— those of us who deal with these matters have met with many cases. We could all cite many cases in every year since 1934 of the type of widow who writes a letter to Deputy Byrne in regard to what she is entitled to under the law. But one must realise, and I think it is an essential realisation, before one proceeds any further with this matter that were it not for workmen's compensation legislation this unfortunate widow to whom Deputy Byrne refers would receive nothing. The workmen's compensation code does provide something, though I agree that the provision is inadequate. I think that it ought not be a separate code at all, administered as it is administered, where the liability and responsibility is not on the State, but on the employer who protects himself by means of an insurance policy. A worker in the course of his employment with Deputy Byrne or somebody else — a worker employed, say, cleaning Deputy Byrne's windows — is killed and Deputy Byrne — not the State — is liable to pay compensation to the widow.

I move the adjournment of the debate.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 11th December, 1952.