Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Feb 1953

Vol. 136 No. 1

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

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Captain Cowan

When the debate was adjourned in November last, I had supported the idea of an amendment of the Workmen's Compensation Acts. Other Deputies had dealt with reasons why there should be a new approach to the matter of compensation. I said then and I repeat now that the provisions for a weekly payment under the Acts are entirely inadequate because of the increase in the cost of living in recent years and that thecompensation provided for the widow of a workman who is killed during and in the course of his employment is also entirely inadequate.

One could waste a considerable amount of time referring to the inadequacy of the present legislation. I do not know what the Government's view in regard to it is, but if this Bill, being a Private Members' Bill, is adopted by the House, I take it that, in accordance with the usual procedure, it will be referred to a Special Committee. That Special Committee would be more competent than we are as a House to deal with improvements in that legislation, so that I will content myself with saying what I have already said on this stage of the Bill without going into any great detail this evening. I hope the opportunity will be availed of to have the Bill referred to a Special Committee and that vital amendments necessary in the Workmen's Compensation Acts will result from its consideration of this Bill.

Mr. Briscoe

Anybody will welcome an amendment of the Workmen's Compensation Acts, but I am not satisfied that the proposed amendment is sufficient to meet the case. I wonder if the Minister would indicate early on that he accepts the principle of amendment of these Acts, and would be prepared to bring in the amendments in a Bill of his own, the Workmen's Compensation Bill which he contemplated introducing before leaving office in 1948. I understand that the Minister had conversations, discussions and consultations with the representatives of unions, and in particular the Congress of Irish Unions, and that the executive of that body had expressed themselves perfectly satisfied with the Bill the Minister then proposed to introduce. I think it would be a good thing if the Minister would indicate to the House that he accepts the principle and will bring in his own Bill.

I find some fault with this Bill. I do not know whether the movers were concerned with immediate relief, and therefore approached it from a very modest point of view, but I think they are too modest and not doing sufficientjustice. The House ought to know the position of the employer. The employer in industry where workmen's compensation is necessary from the point of view of insurance pays a premium to an insurance company on the annual wages he pays, and the strange thing is that, as wages have risen over the years since the last amendment of the code, the premium to the insurance company went up, because of the increased wages paid, but the compensation to the workman did not go up at all. It is fairly reasonable to say that the workmen's wages generally have gone up by something like 100 per cent. and that, therefore, the premium has gone up by 100 per cent., but the workman got nothing in all these years.

There are good employers who, having seen that situation, did three things. They paid the ordinary workmen's compensation premiums which kept the work people covered to the extent of the Act, but many of them realised that the time when an individual requires money more urgently than normally is when he is out of employment, due particularly to an injury received during the course of his employment, and because the working man with £8, £10 or £12 per week could recover only 50/- under the scheme up to the present, certain employers took out an additional policy which I describe as the second step. For a small additional premium, they were able to insure their employees for full wages in the event of accident. Then, there was the third step of the prudent employer taking out a policy to cover himself against a claim under what is called the Campbell Act or the common law, where a person is disabled in a different way from that involved in his being out for so many weeks.

In the case of workpeople who meet with injuries in the course of their employment, who have to remain out of employment for a considerable period and who, during that time, receive less than they need for living requirements, I do not know to what extent the insurance premium would go up if that were to fall on the backs of the company under existing schemes. I have discussed it withinsurance companies, and while they did give additional cover in what I call the second step at a very nominal rate, they feared that, if it were done generally, it would involve a danger for them, due to the possibility of malingering on the part of certain work people. My experience over the past 25 years is that, while there might have been suggestions or cause for suggestions of malingering some time ago, our workers to-day have attained a great standard of honour and honesty, and, with the possible odd exception, I do not think that charge could be levelled against the workers in Irish industry. If the Bill cannot give adequate cover, I feel that there should be a plea to employers to do what, as I say, is done by good employers.

I am not criticising this Bill from the point of view of opposing it, but because I believe its sponsors have erred on the side of modesty, because of the urgency of the situation. For instance, in regard to sub-section (2) of Section 3 which suggests that for 50/- we should substitute 90/-, I am sure Labour Deputies could argue better than I can that the amount should be 100/- rather than 90/- in view of the general increase in the wages. I was hoping that the Minister would see his way to proceed on the lines suggested before in regard to a Bill which he had in mind himself, and we should try to make this increase as equitable as possible and make it fit the actual increase in wages. Certain workers have received, perhaps, more than 100 per cent. of an increase in wages since 1939. Others may have received less but I do feel that the amount provided as compensation under this Bill is not sufficient. Again in regard to lump sum payments, which it is suggested in the Bill should be increased from £500 to £800, I could argue that the increased figure should be at least £1,000.

I do not know whether I am misreading Section 8 but I do not think it is fair. I have personal knowledge of the case of a seaman, a member of the Irish Port Workers' Union who was very seriously injured abroadwhile in the employment of Irish Shipping Limited. This man was brought home and immediately his union proceeded to consider ways and means of making an application under the Campbell Act for compensation over and above 50/-. The man meanwhile had no income whatever and he himself meandered, if I might use the word, to the offices of the Shipping Federation. A form was produced to him and he was told that, if he signed it, there were three weeks' arrears of compensation coming to him.

The poor man signed, took his £7 10s. and walked out. Then he discovered he had signed away his rights to make a claim in the courts because he had neglected to see that he signed without prejudice. I suppose the poor man would not know what these words meant and he certainly was not told. The man then came along to his union and the union told him: "You have made an awful mess of yourself. The only thing you can do now is to apply for the 50/- per week compensation." Apparently he had other advisers and he went to an independent solicitor. He took proceedings in court and lost his case. Then the union proceeded and got him an award of 50/- a week, that award being for life, which obviously showed that he was very seriously injured. The poor man then discovered that, having lost the previous case, he had to pay the costs and his 50/- was docked for two and a half years until the costs were met. That is why I say that I am not satisfied that Section 8 is a sufficient safeguard.

Mr. O'Higgins

Section 8 covers that.

Mr. Briscoe

I am a layman and I am almost as ignorant of legal technicalities as the poor seaman to whom I referred, but I must say that there should be no phraseology providing that at the time of the acceptance of compensation the workman knew he had a right to take proceedings. I say there should be no bar to his taking proceedings to recover his full rights. Justice should be done to the workman in all circumstances, and if the courts found that he was entitled to full compensation under the Campbell Act heshould get it. He should not be left in a position where people can walk him into a trap and make him sign away his rights.

Mr. O'Higgins

It is a step in the right direction, anyway.

Mr. Briscoe

It would be far better for this world, and for this community in particular, if the people for whom this Bill seeks extra facilities were given their rights removed from the courts of law as far as possible. I hope the Labour Deputies will take what I say in good part. Those of us who are employers know our workers. We get to know them and we want to live on the best of terms with them.

If a working man or an employee of a concern in which I have an interest, a man whom I know very well and who I find does his job well, meets with a serious accident in the course of his employment I want to see that he gets his rights and that he will get his wages until such time as it is decided whether it is a permanent injury or otherwise. Workers should not be expected to be familiar with all the intricacies of the law. Even if they have unions to advise them, there are always tricky people who will try to catch them out where there are big sums involved. In such circumstances they are likely to fall for terms of settlement which deny them their full rights. That is why I say I am not too happy about Section 8. If a man has certain rights under certain Acts of Parliament, I think these rights should be accorded to him without qualification and there should be no technical phraseology attached to it.

I have not seen the terms of the Bill which the Minister had previously drafted, but I am informed by certain representatives of various unions that there was a Bill drafted by the present Minister, that it was a comprehensive and adequate measure, that it took care not only of the workman in these claims but also envisaged the question of compensation for widows of workmen who lost their lives. I do believe that in a Bill of this kind when we have an opportunity of amending the present Acts we should go as far as possible and be as liberal as possible and makesure that there should be an adequate safeguard for working men who from day to day are open to serious accidents and that they can feel happy in the security of knowing that they will not be left as this poor seaman is left— I do not know what his family circumstances are—to exist on 50/- per week for the rest of his life, through a mistake in legal advice. If a business man makes a mistake he has to pay for his mistake but if a poor workman takes legal advice and loses his case the legal gentleman does not pay for that mistake. The poor man has to pay for it. Deputy Cowan suggests this matter might be referred to committee. I would rather hear the Minister say that he expects—probably he will— to introduce a Bill here that will be as comprehensive as possible and that will satisfy not only those who represent working people but others who are equally sympathetic to the claims of these working people. There is a responsibility on us to see they are removed from the position they have been in up to the present.

Mr. Larkin

May I say at the outset that the view of Deputy Briscoe, who is a member of the Government Party, is to be welcomed? Although it is a speech made by a member of the Government Party, we realise that it cannot be indicative as yet of what the official Government attitude will be to the Bill. Deputy Briscoe's speech is to be welcomed, because what he said to us will be said by all good employers. I would like to put it on record that Deputy Briscoe is not expressing what he thinks a good employer should say but he is saying it as a good employer himself, and one, who, in his own sphere, lives up to the advice that he gives to this House.

As one who supports the Bill, I scarcely object in any way to the points made by Deputy Briscoe in respect of the apparent limitation of the Bill. What he stated in regard to the workmen's compensation code is correct. There can be no feeling of satisfaction in respect of that code by any decent, Christian man, workman or employer. The code itself is not only complicated, difficult and beyondthe scope of the ordinary man to understand, but it is even frequently beyond the scope of clear explanation by the courts, members of the legal profession and trade unions, who endeavour to ensure that it will be administered in reasonable fairness to the worker. Above all, the basis of the code is not to approach it from the aspect that Deputy Briscoe suggested, namely, that it is at times of sickness and physical injury the workman requires the greatest amount of sustenance and financial support, but on the contrary the whole problem of the injured workman is approached from the point of view of imposing upon him and his family the greatest amount of hunger and deprivation that can be legally imposed for the purpose of driving him back to work or compelling him to accept a lump sum settlement.

Whoever may be the Government in power and whatever may be the views of political Parties, I do not think that any of us would stand over in public the basis of such a legislative code. Quite clearly there is an urgent and immediate need to review the whole approach that is at present enshrined in our legislation to the problem of the injured worker and his dependents.

So far as the present code is concerned and even the present amending Bill before the House, I frankly do not like the particular code. Like Deputy Briscoe, I think an effort should be made to take the welfare and the protection of the injured worker out of the atmosphere of the law entirely and that we should have it based on some form of State insurance related to the particular conditions and the relationship that exists between the workman and his employer and particularly in respect of the rôle of the workman in industry and his position as a producer of wealth. From that point of view I think it is not unfair to say that, with the exception of good employers—and there are not many—the approach by employers on the whole is merely to give the injured workmen the barest minimum required by law, and the law as it stands provides the bare minimum against complete destitution. That issomething which none of us in this House is prepared to stand over.

So far as the present Bill is concerned, I think that those of us who support the Bill would have welcomed the decision of the Government that they were going to deal with this matter as one of urgency because it is urgent. It will be recalled that only some months ago questions were addressed to the Minister in an effort to elicit some indication of what the Government's attitude was in the matter and whether there was any indication of legislation being introduced at an early date. Nothing definite was forthcoming. It is for that reason that the Bill confines itself exclusively to three of the most urgent questions that arise in respect of workmen's compensation and does not attempt to deal with a whole host of other questions that are also important and require consideration but are of such a nature as would probably require a review of the whole legislative code in respect of workmen's compensation.

In so far as the main points of the Bill deal with weekly payments and, consequent on that, the question of lump sum redemption in respect of total or partial incapacity, the question of payments in respect of the death of an injured workman to dependents and further, the matter referred to by Deputy Briscoe, which is dealt with under Section 8, these are matters that those of us who have to deal with them day after day know cannot any longer be left hanging over without attention. Whatever may be the decision that the Minister is to communicate to us on this Bill so far as the Government is concerned, it is essential to make one thing clear. Whatever may be the view of the Government in respect of a general review of the compensation code as a whole, it is physically impossible for an injured workman to continue to exist any longer on 50/- a week. If there is to be general amending legislation, whether it be to amend the existing code or introduce a new principle, there must be some immediate provision made to deal with the question of weekly payments.

In connection with the present Bill,it is important to bear in mind that, with the exception of Section 8, the only problem that is presented in the House is the one revolving around the question of weekly payments. That is the basis which touches the question of the redemption of weekly payments by the payment of a lump sum. It is also in the final analysis the determining factor in respect of payments arising from the death of the injured worker.

Therefore, if we consider the question of the adequacy of 50/- we will appreciate the main purpose of the Bill and why there is this expression of urgency on the part of all those who ask the House to give it support. With regard to the adequacy of 50/-, I might recall—it has already been pointed out in the debate—that, when the 1934 Act was passed, we had the figure fixed at 30/-. It is important to remember that although in the Act there is a percentage figure set down indicating a certain relationship between the weekly payment for compensation and wages, in actual practice, so far as 95 per cent of the injured workers are concerned, the figure that is to be considered is the 50/- at the present time, in the same way as 30/- before.

If we start to consider the figure of 30/- in the provisions of the 1934 Act and then relate it to the conditions of 1953 we can apply some reasonable test. In the Bill the main proposal is to increase the figure of 50/- to 90/-. Again, I think we cannot object to Deputy Briscoe's criticism that we have been too modest and that the figure should be higher. I think we will also agree that you have to frame Bills in the conditions that present themselves and while we would be anxious to get much more, I think we would feel that we had made considerable progress if we could ensure that we would reach the 90/-. There is still time to increase that figure by amendment. There will certainly be no difficulty on this side of the House if such a proposal is set down.

Our purpose in setting down 90/- was to try and not give rise to questions of principle but rather to say that if in 1934 a figure of 30/- was laid down in the Act of that date it is reasonable toadjust that figure to present-day conditions. The basis on which we have done that is (1) that we feel that 30/- in 1934 was basically too small in itself, and (2) that there have since been increases in the cost of living and increases in wages. In 1934 the figure of 30/—at least in Dublin City, for example—represented approximately half of what you might regard as the average wage for the labouring man. To-day that wage of 50/- or 60/- in 1934 has gone to between 120/- and 130/-. But the figure of 30/-, which was then 50 per cent. of the wages, now has gone to 50/-, and that 50/- represents a much smaller percentage of wages than in 1934. From the other angle of the cost of living, on a very rough calculation I think it is probably correct to say that the overall increase in the cost of living from 1934 to date would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 130 per cent. or 140 per cent.

Mr. Briscoe

1934?

Mr. Larkin

1934 was the date of the Act. Actually, I think that probably a fairer figure would be 150 per cent. It is reasonable to ask that that 30/- should be adjusted to meet that rise.

Even among those who support the Bill there are a variety of opinions as to whether we should have fixed the figure at 75/-, £4 10s. or £5, but in politics it is often a matter of securing what is possible and not what we like ourselves. The door is open. If the feeling of the House is that the principle enunciated by Deputy Briscoe is the proper principle there is still the opportunity of embodying it in the Bill itself.

So far as the suggestion contained in the Bill is concerned to increase the figure in respect of weekly payments from 50/- to 90/-, there may be the viewpoint, to which Deputy Briscoe referred, of what effect it will have on employers, the working class and industry generally, and also how it will affect insurance companies. In the first place, I think we should be aware that the actual cost of insurance premiums—and I am talking now of averages because it varies from industry to industry according to the risks that are involved—in respect of liability underthe Campbell code does not represent a very considerable item of expenditure for industry. The nearest figures I could get were those published in the Trade Journalfor 1947 and in theStatistical Abstractfor 1951. They indicated that in 1949, under the heading of “Employers' Liability”, the total premiums paid to both Irish and English companies amounted to £1,300,000. Presumably, as Deputy Briscoe pointed out, as wages have increased since 1949 the total paid in premiums would now be somewhat greater. Let us put it in round figures at £2,000,000. If we relate that figure to the total wage bill of 1951, which is some £180,000,000, we see that the percentage is not very great. But the insurance companies, on the whole, do fairly well. Again, according to official figures, we find that in 1949, in return for the payment of premiums amounting to £1,300,000, the actual return received so far as employers are concerned in the form of claims paid and outstanding on that account amounted to some £700,000. The amount absorbed by the companies on commission and management was £400,000. Therefore, it is a fairly lucrative business for the insurance companies.

Because of the system of calculating premiums, on every occasion on which there is an increase in wages the premium automatically goes up. Despite, however, the increase in wages in 1948, 1950 and 1951, with their automatic increase in the premiums paid by employers, the only increase that has taken place in so far as the payments to injured workmen is concerned is the increase that took place in 1948 bringing the figure to 50/-.

Therefore, from the point of view of imposing an undue burden on industry or on employers, I think it can quite clearly be held that even the figure of 90/- is not of such an order and can quite well be borne by industry generally even on the basis of the charges made by the insurance companies.

The alternative to facing this problem of the inadequacy of the weekly payment and facing the possibility that industry, as it should, willhave to bear this additional burden is, in fact, to ask the injured workman to bear the burden himself. When one recalls the difficulties that we meet with in everyday life one appreciates how difficult it is to explain to a workman—as I have had to do to-day—why it is that when he meets with an accident he drops, in so far as family income is concerned, from £7 to 50/-, and how he is going to live on that 50/-. One realises how impossible it is to get him to appreciate how that 50/- is arrived at and what the justification is for asking him to live on 50/- a week when he requires not merely normal sustenance but something in addition because of the fact that he is now sick and ailing. There is the further difficulty of explaining that that is being paid to him not merely as a compensation for an injury but as a means to assist him to rehabilitation and recovery of his health and to getting back to work. Of course, it is quite impossible and you cannot explain it. It is for that reason that I suggest that even though it might be argued—and I think that figures I have indicated show that the argument is very weak— that the proposal in the Bill to increase the payment to 90/- seems to represent a very considerable increase over the present figure, the alternative is to ask many hundreds of injured workmen each year to continue to exist on 50/- per week which, in present-day conditions, is physically impossible and no man should be asked to do it.

In so far as the second point arises, that is, the question of continuing incapacity, if the argument is sound that 50/- is adequate as a weekly payment to sustain a man during his period of incapacity as a result of an accident, then it is equally sound when it comes to find the basis of calculation on which a workman is to have his weekly payment redeemed by the payment of a lump sum. In fact the position is worse. While a workman may be able to last on 50/- a week for three, four, five or six weeks, with each additional week that he is required to live on it the problem becomes more intense and more impossible of solution. Everybody who knows the conditions of working-class life knows that there are certain limited resources that can becalled upon over a short period of a few weeks, but after a few weeks they become exhausted, and from then on the 50/- is the sole source of income. When one recalls that it is not infrequent to find a man compelled to exist on that weekly payment not for weeks or months but sometimes for years, and to rear a family on that limited sum, then I think that what I said in the beginning is correct, namely, that the basis of our code is not to assist the injured workman but, in fact, to compel him to return to work regardless of whether or not he has recovered.

I recall a case that occurred some years ago where a man was compelled to exist for nine years on a sum of 35/- a week. He was expected to rear a family, to support a wife and six children over that period of nine years on 35/- a week, and, by the way, he had been employed by a public concern. Under our peculiar code, and because of the fact that we are depending on the insurance companies for the effective working of that code, the decision in that particular case was not the decision of the employer. In all these cases the decision is that of the insurance company. In this case it gambled on that man not living so long because he had been very badly injured, and so believed it would be able to reduce the period of its liability. Finally, after nine years, it redeemed the weekly payment by a lump-sum payment of £800 or £900. By the time that man had paid all his debts he had not a penny left. That is how he was left for the rest of his life. In the meantime some of his children had grown up.

Finally, in respect of a payment arising on the death of an injured workman, I think there is only one point to be made. In the week that this Bill was introduced in the House there appeared in the daily Press the report of a case of a workman in the City of Cork who met his death in the course of his employment. The report stated that the widow and ten children of that man had been awarded a sum of £600. I do not think any further comment needs to be made on that than to ask if any member ofthe House, no matter what Party he belongs to or what may be his political view, would be prepared to stand over a position where a widow and ten children are to be expected to meet the outgoings of life on that sum: that the widow is to be expected to rear these ten children, and that the value to that family of the dead man is to be measured by a sum of £600 in 1953.

So far as this Bill is concerned, it is very modestly suggested that, without interfering with the present system of calculating the lump sum in respect of dependents, we deal simply with the matter by multiplying the figures there by three, and so give a sum of money that will be better related to present-day conditions for those who are left, following the loss of the breadwinner.

So far as Section 8 is concerned, I frankly agree with Deputy Briscoe in feeling that the ordinary workman should not be required to exercise his option. It is something completely outside his capacity. I think it would be impossible either for a member of the legal profession in this House, or for those of us in the trade unions, really to be able to explain to the average workman what is involved in trying to exercise that option. I can see no reason why the court, in deciding as between a case coming under the Workmen's Compensation Act or other Acts, cannot take into review all the circumstances of a case and exercise on behalf of the workman the rights which will benefit him most. If it is a question of common law, let him have the benefit of that.

Mr. MacBride

There is no reason why there should be an option at all.

Mr. Larkin

No. It is a question of trying to get the minimum, the essential, change at the moment. In regard to the case to which Deputy Briscoe referred, that, in fact, is the case which necessitated the introduction of Section 8. Since that case was decided those of us who have to deal with these matters have found that many other cases are now being prejudiced by that decision. I know of some half-dozen cases where the circumstances are exactly the same, and because of the ignorance of workmen in acceptingcompensation they are now prohibited from proceeding at common law to seek to secure the full benefits which should be available to them.

The last case that arose I dealt with it personally myself. This was a case where an injured workman, while lying in hospital, was visited by the agent of the insurance company. He went into that man while he was suffering in hospital and got him to sign a receipt for the compensation. Whether this House is going to stand for that kind of thing or not I do not know, but up to the recent decision of the Supreme Court it was possible to try to deal with that kind of case. Now the door is locked. The members of this House are the only people in this country who can unlock that door and so prevent a workman, who has been maimed and is suffering physical pain in a hospital from being subjected to such outrageous procedure as I have mentioned. A man who has been seriously injured is incapable, because of his sufferings, from exercising ordinary reasonable judgment at that point, even if he had a knowledge of what the law is. It is while he is in that condition that he is asked to sign his rights away, and it is only when he recovers that he realises what has happened. When those in a position to advise him have an opportunity of looking into his case, they then find that it is too late to do anything. The House should not stand for that, and so should restore to them the freedom which they were able to exercise before on behalf of injured workmen.

Dr. Ryan

This workmen's compensation code was first introduced, I believe, in 1897. It is quite possible, I think, that, if it had not been brought in before the national health scheme and the unemployment scheme, it would have fitted into the social legislation which goes back to 1908. That did not happen. As a result, it has developed independently ever since. As Deputies are aware there have been many Acts since that time dealing with workmen's compensation. Nearly all of them have been brought in in order to improve, first of all, thechances of the injured man getting his compensation and, secondly, getting better compensation.

The latest review of this old fundamental question of workmen's compensation that I can lay my hands on is that by Sir William Beveridge when drawing up social legislation in England. He was looking at it, if you like, in a very theoretical way, and commenced by saying that the test in all these things is need. He said he failed to see that the need was greater for the man who broke his leg at work than for the man who broke his leg in the street, and he was very much inclined to include workmen's compensation under ordinary sickness benefit in the social welfare scheme brought in in England. He did, however, see certain objections. One was that a person entering a certain occupation might think that it was a risky occupation and might, therefore, expect to be better compensated, if he was injured in that work, than he would if he had got injured outside his work. Secondly, a man might claim that, if injured during his work, he was injured when under orders. For that reason he finally came down to the recommendation that the first 13 weeks should be treated the same as ordinary sickness and after that, if the injury arose out of his employment, it should be treated on a more generous basis.

One of the reasons that he gave for having the same for the first 13 weeks was in order to save the investigation in minor injuries, which was indeed an idea worth considering but, when the Government in England got his scheme they said that it would have to be investigated in any case when the 13 weeks were over, and they rejected that part of the Beveridge Report although thy accepted what he recommended practically entirely on social welfare, except for workmen's compensation and, as Deputies know, they made it a separate scheme under separate legislation. I just mention that because it is the latest report that I have seen from any body who examined this thing fundamentally, as it were, in recent times.

What have we to consider here? If we were to look, as we should andas we intend to, at this workmen's compensation in a comprehensive way, we should consider whether it should be made part of our social welfare code, that is, if you like that it should be nationalised. As far as I can find out it has not been nationalised except in England. I have been told that it is nationalised in one other country but I have not got verification of that yet but it is not a type of scheme that has been nationalised very generally as, say, national health and unemployment have been in many countries. Therefore, we have not very much experience to look for in other countries. We would, of course, have the few years' experience that they have in Great Britain and in the North of Ireland that might give us some information in making up our mind whether we should nationalise workmen's compensation or not. It is a matter that must be considered.

Mr. MacBride

May I put to the Minister one of the objections to nationalisation of workmen's compensation cases? It is that where it is nationalised the employer is relieved of a certain amount of the onus which rests upon him to ensure the safety of his workmen, particularly where it is a question of employment which may bring about disease.

Dr. Ryan

No.

Mr. MacBride

Where the employer has to pay compensation or to pay a higher premium to his insurance company, he has to take greater care. That is one of the problems of nationalisation.

Dr. Ryan

Naturally, the employer would have to pay the premium to the State Department concerned.

Mr. Briscoe

They would see that there were safety measures.

Mr. MacBride

I do not think the Minister quite got the point. One problem that arises in nationalising workmen's compensation is that the employer at present has to provide certain measures to ensure the safety of his workmen in order that his insurance company will insure himwithout charging him an extra premium. Therefore, it is an additional safeguard as far as the workman is concerned because the employer, in order to reduce premiums and in order to get an insurance company to cover him, has to comply with certain minimum standards.

Dr. Ryan

I think that matter could be looked after. As a matter of fact, apart from this altogether, under the Factory Acts, these matters are supposed to be attended to by inspectors who are there for the purpose. That part could be tightened up, if necessary. The second point then, of course, is benefits. That is to a great extent, practically entirely, what we are concerned with in this Bill to-night.

I should say at this stage that I had intended getting down to this question of workmen's compensation as soon as the Department had time to come to it. Deputies will realise that, from the time that I took office until the passing of the Act early last year, all the higher officers were engaged in the preparation of that Bill and in seeing that it went through. From the time the Act was passed until the implementation of the provisions of the Act was complete, the higher officers again were fully occupied. As a matter of fact the Act was only fully implemented on 5th January, that is, the 5th of last month. It was only then that we could say that we had completed the work that was entailed in the passing of that Act last year.

Up to 5th January the principal officers in the Department were drafting the regulations that would be necessary. Many voluminous regulations issued just in the beginning of this year. These had to be drafted, considered and got out, and so on, and certain administrative action had to be taken to put all these various regulations into operation.

That work was completed only on the 5th January. I was getting many complaints, as I suppose every Deputy knows, from the country people, that they were not getting national health insurance on the proper day or not getting children's allowances at thetime that they should get them, that applications were coming in and receipts were not going out for a long time. All the machinery was upset. It took some time to get that straightened out, and I was asked to leave it until the middle of January at least before requesting the officials to get on to another job. I am told by the Department that things are now beginning to run smoothly and that they do not anticipate that there will be any further difficulties under the new Act that went through last year and we can find time to consider problems of this kind now.

Benefit is one matter. That is dealt with to a great extent in this Bill, and when I come to say a few words about the Bill we can talk about that.

There is one point. If we are all convinced, and everybody who spoke so far appears to be convinced, that higher benefits should be paid under workmen's compensation, the view that I would like to hear expressed is as to whether or not we should bring our ideas here more into line with the other social schemes, that is, that we should pay a higher benefit where a man has a wife and a higher benefit still where he has a wife and two children than we pay to the single man. I think it would be a much better scheme to give the higher benefits to the dependents than to provide the higher benefits proposed in the Bill introduced by Deputy Norton. That is a point for consideration.

Another point that has been mentioned here by some Deputies is the very big amount of law that appears to follow workmen's compensation. I do not know whether we can get over that or whether we can, in any future legislation, try to draft it in such a way as to rule out the possibility of the man having to go to court for a decision as to whether he is entitled to apply for compensation one way or the other. But, no matter how we draft a Bill, it appears to me that there is always a possibility that there may be some dispute or contest out of it, and the case eventually goes to court.

We can lessen that of course as far as possible. It was put to me, for instance, that it should not be necessary to go to court to prove that an injury arose in the course of employment; that if this were, say, nationalised and a claim came to the Department of Social Welfare and a man claimed that the injury arose out of his employment —I am presuming that he would get more if he succeeded in that than he would under ordinary sickness benefit —it should be sufficient to have an officer appointed to decide that issue. I do not know whether that would be satisfactory or not, but these are things which would have to be considered in connection with legislation dealing with workmen's compensation. There are many questions, therefore, that must be considered if we were bringing in an amending Bill.

As to this Bill, I am afraid that Deputy Norton in introducing it did not give as close attention to the provisions which he put into it as he did, say, when he brought in the 1948 Bill. First of all, take the question of scope. There are certain exceptions, but, roughly speaking, those employed in manual labour came under the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1934 as well as those who were working for an employer but not doing manual labour, if their salary was below £350 per year. In 1948, Deputy Norton, when Minister for Social Welfare raised that to £500. I do not know, but that was probably because that was the ceiling for national health insurance and unemployment insurance. If so, the amount should now be £600, not £800. In fact, I cannot see why £800 is put in.

Even if the Deputy has not taken into consideration what the ceiling is for national health insurance and unemployment insurance and even if he takes it on the average wage or salary, the type of worker in an office who was getting £350 in 1934 was probably getting £500 in 1948. I do not see anything wrong with that. But is the person who was getting £500 in 1948 getting £800 now? On that basis, Deputy Norton appears to have departed from what he had in mind in 1948. He has not adhered to the social welfarescheme or the level of wages or salaries.

He has departed from what should be there if he were going on either basis. However, the question of scope is not a very big matter and if we were bringing in a Bill I am sure we would not have very much dispute about that matter. I do not know, however, why £800 is put in.

Then take Section 3 which deals with the weekly payment under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. In 1934 that was 30/-. The workman who got injured could not get more than 30/-, and he might get less. If his wages were 30/-, he would only get 75 per cent of that. In 1942, under an Emergency Powers Order, that was raised to 37/6. In 1948, when Deputy Norton was Minister, he raised it to 50/-. As Deputy Larkin pointed out, 30/- was roughly about half a labourer's wage in Dublin in 1934 and 50/- was about half a labourer's wage in 1948. That appears fair enough so that Deputy Norton as Minister in 1948 proceeded on what might be regarded as a normal reasonable basis, keeping it in the same relationship to wages throughout the country. But, if he were following that in 1948, he is not following that now. He makes it 90/-. We do not know why he does that. Deputy Larkin made a very good case for that, I admit, and so did Deputy Briscoe, but they are making the case that we should depart entirely from the rates in the past and go more towards the full earnings of a man in connection with workmen's compensation. That may be a very laudable opinion for any person to express here. All I can say is that Deputy Norton as a Deputy has much more liberal views than he had when a Minister.

Mr. Norton

And vice versa.

Dr. Ryan

Those who want to see good conditions for workmen should keep Deputy Norton in the Opposition because they would get very much better value from him in that position than they would from him as Minister.

Mr. Norton

If you have a general election to-morrow you will see.

Dr. Ryan

I am only giving advice in case there is an election.

Mr. Norton

You have not forgotten the result of the last by-election in North-West Dublin?

Dr. Ryan

No; that was a lesson to us.

Mr. Davin

Deputy Briscoe will not forget it anyway.

Dr. Ryan

Let us keep this discussion friendly.

Mr. Norton

In view of your desire to keep it friendly, will you remember that, according to figures furnished by the Taoiseach recently, it now takes 90/- to buy what £2 would buy in 1939?

Dr. Ryan

I am talking about 1948. The Deputy was probably right when he considered in 1948 that it took 50/- to buy what 30/- would buy in 1934. As a Minister, he took a perfectly sane view of it. If he continued to view things in that way he would probably, instead of 90/-, have put in, say, 65/-. That is why I say Deputy Norton has a better outlook now than he had as Minister.

As to the lump sum which is paid in the case of a fatal accident, that is a very involved business because it varies very much when the person is an adult and it depends on how many dependants he has. It is very hard to give an example, but I think £600 is a lump sum anyhow. In 1948, as Deputy O'Higgins pointed out when Deputy Norton brought in his Bill, he did not increase that. Deputy O'Higgins also pointed out, when discussing this Bill some two months ago, that he and other Deputies pressed Deputy Norton to increase the benefit at that time in the case of fatal accidents and Deputy Norton refused. I have not had time to read up these debates yet, but, as far as I remember, Deputy Norton said that there was a great difference since 1934.

Deputy Norton said that in 1934 there were no widows' pensions. There were, of course, no children's allowances either. He said that the widow, therefore, in 1948 was infinitely better off than the widow in 1934. Infinitely is used in its proper contextthere because if she was getting whatever the sum was at that time in 1948 —I think 18/- per week—that was infinitely more than nothing. Therefore, the Deputy was right in that, and he proved to the House and the House accepted the principle in 1948 that there should be no increase. Deputy Norton advanced that argument as Minister for Social Welfare. It was accepted by his own Party. It was accepted by Fine Gael and, as far as I remember, it was accepted by Fianna Fáil. I think we had no vote on it. We were a most reasonable Opposition.

Deputy Norton now comes along when both widows' pensions and children's allowances are improved and he multiplies by three. Is that not a remarkable change on the part of a man who made the case here of a good conservative Minister in 1948, and stated there should be no increase? Subsequently he walks across the floor into opposition, and he says the figure should now be multiplied by three. Am I not right in advising everybody here who wants to get a better do for the workman to leave Deputy Norton in Opposition?

Deputy Larkin mentioned a case in Cork of a widow with ten children. That is a pitiable case but, remember, had that woman been a widow in 1934 in the same circumstances she would have got nothing. Now through widows' pension and children's allowances she gets £3 12s. 6d. per week. I do not say a woman with ten children can live luxuriously on that sum. I do not want to be misquoted, but if one capitalises that it comes to quite a fair sum. It has much more value than £600 when it is capitalised. If Deputy Norton was able to argue in 1948 along the line on which I am arguing now to the point of not raising the figure at all, he appears to be a different man now, and he says we should multiply by three.

Mr. O'Higgins

How much would the Minister multiply it by?

Dr. Ryan

I do not know whether I would multiply it by three, but I would be inclined to raise it.

Mr. O'Higgins

Does not the Minister agree it should be increased in any event?

Mr. Hickey

One has to take into consideration the purchasing power of the £ now as compared with 1934.

Dr. Ryan

I am not very facile at mathematics. We will come back to that sum. I agree with the idea incorporated in Section 8. I have not considered this matter very fully, but I think it is very wrong that a man who draws his 50/- a week because he may be hard up and very glad to get the money, and because he decides that he can carry on for a few weeks on that until he finds out how his claim will go, subsequently finds that he has no claim in common law. That is very hard lines, and I think we should remedy that situation.

I agree with Deputy Briscoe that it should be done in such a way that there should be no necessity to appeal to the court to find out whether or not the man was aware of what he was doing when he signed this document. I think he should have an option and be able to choose either. There should perhaps be some limit to that. Take the case of an employer whose employee meets with an accident and the employer pays him 50/- per week; I think the employer, too, has a right to know within a reasonable time whether the claim will be settled under workmen's compensation or under common law. I think we must adopt the idea behind this clause.

Mr. MacBride

So long as the employer has not got to pay twice there is no objection to the workman having complete freedom to choose his remedy.

Dr. Ryan

That is so. Perhaps we should put it that the employer must inform the employee of his rights under the Act. I think we should incorporate this idea in Section 8 in any legislation we bring in. When the Social Welfare Act was introduced last year we were in the happy position of having officers in the Department who had spent their lives dealing with sickness benefit, with unemployment assistance,with children's allowances, with widows' and orphans' pensions and so on. We had experts on all these aspects of social welfare. Unfortunately we have nobody with an intimate knowledge of workmen's compensation. The only thing that was ever done in the Department in connection with workmen's compensation was to bring in Acts from time to time increasing the amount. We have no experts on the administration side of workmen's compensation. That is a handicap because when we come to consider whether the whole business should or should not be nationalised it is very difficult to get a complete picture since we have no officer with a practical knowledge of how workmen's compensation should be administered. There are no books on the subject. There are no reports from other countries. England has only adopted it in very recent times and, as far as I know, no other country has gone in for workmen's compensation on the basis of nationalisation. We are, therefore, somewhat handicapped in studying the position, but we are studying it. That is all I can say on the point at this juncture. We should be able to decide as to the direction in which we will proceed and we should be able to make that decision probably before Easter. If we decide to go in for nationalisation it will take some time to prepare a Bill, have it passed through both Houses and subsequently implemented. It would be unreasonable to say that we would wait for that if there is now a good case for an increase in the rate of workmen's compensation and every Deputy who has spoken so far appears to think there is a very good case for it indeed.

Simultaneously with considering whether or not it should be nationalised we are considering the rates, and I think we should be in a position to introduce our proposals before Easter. I do not think that will delay any improvement very much as far as the working man is concerned. If we bring in legislation dealing with increased benefits it will have application at the beginning of a quarter. It would be difficult to do it otherwise. As far as I know, these things must be introduced at the beginning of a quarter.We could hardly be expected to bring them in at the beginning of April but, if the Bill is introduced before Easter, it should be possible to implement it by 1st July without any great difficulty.

Mr. O'Higgins

That is assuming it becomes part of the social services?

Dr. Ryan

No. I said we are considering the question as to whether or not it should become part of the social welfare code and at the same time we are considering the benefits. If we did go on to nationalisation it would take too long to implement and it would be too long for men who are drawing these benefits, that do not appear to be adequate, to wait. Therefore, if we are convinced that it must be done we should bring in a Bill—whether it is an interim Bill or a permanent Bill does not matter.

Mr. O'Higgins

I do not understand the Minister's reference to quarters.

Dr. Ryan

I am not sure on that point but I think it is necessary that these payments should be made quarterly.

Mr. MacBride

If the only immediate point at issue is the amount of the benefits, would the Minister not be in a position to decide that within a few days?

Dr. Ryan

I will come back to that question. I want to make myself clear on this point before I leave it. Whether we decide to nationalise or not the net point is that a Bill to deal with benefits and those other points, like Section 8, would be ready— I do not say passed—before Easter. Whether it will be a permanent Bill or not does not matter because it will be permanent or it will be replaced by nationalisation.

Deputy MacBride says if it is only a matter of considering the benefit it is a simple matter. I do not think it is altogether a simple matter. For instance, one point to which I would like to give some consideration—I do not say it will take a long time—is whether we should not bring it into line with our other social scheme by giving benefits to the dependentsrather than leaving it a completely basic benefit as it is at the moment.

Mr. MacBride

Could that not form part of the permanent legislation?

Dr. Ryan

I think that should be considered at this stage before we go any further with workmen's compensation because it is easier to do it now, I think, than at a later stage.

Captain Cowan

Would it be necessary to discuss this with the insurance companies?

Dr. Ryan

Yes. I am told this from the Department, that if dependents are to be brought in the insurance companies say they have no method of investigating these cases and it will be a costly procedure as far as they are concerned. I have a suggestion to make on that point. As we have the records of every insured person under the social welfare scheme we can supply any insurance company for a small fee with a certificate saying whether a man——

Mr. O'Higgins

The courts can do it anyway.

Mr. Briscoe

Keep the courts out of it.

Dr. Ryan

It would be costly. We do not want to go to the courts. We want to make it a simple matter.

Mr. MacBride

I think the Minister was discussing an interim measure to give him time for the next few months to consider the position as a whole. That would only involve a change of two figures, the weekly sum and the sum where the fatal accident occurs.

Dr. Ryan

It involves a little bit of consideration. Deputies must be a little reasonable in this matter. I was asked a question several times, whether I intended to deal with workmen's compensation, and the answer I think I gave was: "No, not for the present." I think I explained on a previous occasion what I explained to-night that the whole of the higher staff was fully occupied on the Social Welfare Act of 1952, first as regardsthe Government, then putting it through the House and then in connection with its implementation, and that we would have needed more officers to get things going smoothly and more quickly under that Act. However, we could not help that, and it is only now that the Act is beginning to operate properly. Therefore, there was not an opportunity until about a week ago of having this question considered, and for the last week I have had some of the senior officers considering this social welfare business. I believe we will be able to get some scheme ready in the course of a few weeks.

As Deputy MacBride and Deputy Norton are probably aware, there are other Departments very interested in this business. The Department of Agriculture, the Department of Industry and Commerce and the Department of Finance are very interested. When we talk about nationalisation they would be very interested, and we must put our proposals before these Departments before we go to the Government and before we draft a Bill. Those Deputies who were in the Government must know that nothing can happen in a few days.

Mr. MacBride

That would take at least a year. It would be necessary to bring in an interim measure.

Dr. Ryan

It will not take a year. The Deputy knows we must go through that procedure. It will not take a year. We will have our proposals ready in a fortnight and the other Departments would take a week or ten days to deal with it.

Mr. MacBride

Unless the Department of Finance is slipping, I cannot see them letting it through for several months.

Dr. Ryan

Anyway, I am putting it to the Dáil that as far as I am concerned any proposal I would have would be given to the Dáil before Easter and I ask the movers of the Bill to accept that and withdraw the Bill. If they do not withdraw the Bill I will have to ask the Dáil to vote against it.

Mr. Norton

The Minister realises that only six weeks ago he stated inthis House he did not propose to introduce any amending Bill during the present session. This Bill has had an accelerating effect on him.

Dr. Ryan

The "present session" was over before Christmas.

Mr. Norton

He said this session, just before Christmas.

Dr. Ryan

I do not know what a session is.

Mr. Hickey

I do not agree that we should postpone any further the giving of increases in benefit and increases to the widows and orphans of the men who were killed as a result of accidents and I hope that on the next occasion when we are discussing this it will not be looked upon as a Party matter, that the Whips will be removed and we will have a decent discussion. I do not agree with the Minister as to the effect of the benefit being increased to 90/-. According to the present purchasing power of the pound 90/- to-day is worth only 34/6, and under the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1934 the workmen got 30/- a week. That indicates the genuine case of those who are advocating for increases in their benefits both for the man and for his wife. I can quote a case—and it was published in the Press —where a carpenter was injured last October and left nine young children. They got the large sum of £600 and his wife got £186 compensation for herself.

I hope when we are discussing this matter on the resumption of the debate that every member of the House, irrespective of what Party he belongs to, will face up to the problem and that we will increase the weekly payments to 90/- and also increase the lump sum payment. I want to point out the inhumanity of some of the insurance companies, which is simply shocking. A number of men had the 50/- a week stopped a week before Christmas and it was done for no other purpose than to force the men to a settlement of their claims. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.