The Minister has to bring in new regulations before you make the Order?
Committee on Finance. - Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Bill, 1953—Committee Stage.
Section 1 agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
I do not know if there are any regulations necessary but there will have to be some notice given, naturally, because as far as I can get any information there are about 150,000 employers concerned in this so we will have to give due notice.
Can the Minister say what is in his mind on the appointed day? I quite understand his need for giving some notice of the alterations contemplated by this Bill. Would he say how long after the enactment of the Bill by the Dáil and the Seanad it is anticipated that it will be in operation?
I do not know how long the Dáil and Seanad may take on this Bill but I should think that it would be matter of six weeks or so after that anyway.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move amendment No. 1:—
Before Section 3, to insert a new section as follows:—
On and after the appointed day, any policy of insurance held by an employer to indemnify him against his liability under the Act of 1934 as extended by the Act of 1948 shall be extended as to indemnify him against such liability for increased payments by the employer to workmen in his employment until such policy of insurance is varied by agreement between the parties thereto.
The purpose in putting forward this amendment is to deal with the situation which can arise because of the basis on which the workmen's compensation code is operated. Nominally the statutory liability is laid on the employer but in practice, of course,the ability of the employer to meet his liability is largely determined by the contractual relationship between himself and his insurance company. As matters would stand under existing policies it could quite conceivably happen that, although in passing this Act we would make provision for the increase of payments to injured workmen, if there was not the necessary clause in the insurance policies while the legal liability would be placed on the employer he would not be protected by the existing policy in respect of the additional payments.
This is a matter that probably in the majority of cases might not give rise to any difficulties, but where we would be dealing with a small employer against whom there might be an order made in respect of weekly payments possibly he might be affected, in so far as the composition of these weekly payments for a lump sum is concerned. We might have the difficulty then arising that the individual employer would not be in a position to meet his statutory obligations. Therefore the amendment proposes that arising out of the changes which may be made by the passing of this Bill until such time as the agreement between employer and insurance company is varied with the increased liability, in so far as the employer is concerned it would be met under the existing contract in respect of his insurance policy. I think it is a very reasonable amendment, and it is not merely designed to protect injured workmen who are the subject of the Bill, it is also to protect particularly small employers who might find themselves in this difficult position. In so far as insurance companies are concerned, they will be in a position to subsequently cover any increased commitments that might fall upon them in the very short period that might possibly arise between the coming into operation of the Act and the drafting and the honouring of any new agreement in respect of insurance cover. The very fact that in the earlier section, Section 2, the Minister is taking power to appoint a day, will give notice to the employers and the insurance companies and will provide them with a reasonable period in whichto face up to this new position, but lest through any inadvertence on the part of the insurance companies or the employers there might be a gap, we do feel that in the interest of the workmen and the employer this amendment is one which should commend itself to the Minister and to the House.
I am in full agreement in supporting this amendment. If my recollection serves me right I think it is embodied in most policies that the company will pay compensation at the legal rate, but there might be a loophole in certain policies where maybe unscrupulous brokers have left themselves in a position in which they may opt out, and I think, as Deputy Larkin says, that the amendment should be put into the Bill and should be accepted by the Minister pending the coming into operation of a new agreement between employer and employee. This is merely a safeguard both to the employer and to the employee, because very often the employer does not read his policy of insurance. He merely accepts the fact that he is covered, and I think it is an amendment which should be acceptable to the Minister.
I do not know what the point of view of the Minister is on this amendment, but I think I heard him stating on a previous stage that the companies had given an undertaking that they would not charge any more premium even if they had to give more cover. I think that Deputy O'Donnell is right in that they do undertake to pay at the legal rate. In that event, I do not see that this amendment is necessary if the Minister is satisfied that the insurance companies will honour that undertaking.
I think this is a most important amendment. I was surprised that it was necessary for Deputy Larkin to introduce it because it should be a routine matter and it should have been included in the Bill. The position is that the workmen's compensation policy usually specifies the Acts in respect of which the employer is indemnified. The Employers' Liability Act and the various Workmen's CompensationActs are specified. I should say that it would be necessary for policies to be amended by an endorsement indicating that the employer will be indemnified in the future as a result of the new Workmen's Compensation Act, 1953. That would not have been mentioned in the policies already issued but it would be specified in the policies to be issued from now on. In their own interests, the insurance companies do not provide indemnity in respect of liability which has not already been provided for by way of legislation.
There have been many Acts of this kind. The last one was in 1948. The Acts all lay down the same principle as we have here, namely, that increased benefits have to be paid to those who are in receipt of payments under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. They all went through smoothly. There was no complaint. I do not see why any difficulties should be anticipated now any more than in 1948 or any other time when such a Bill was going through.
The Accident Offices Association, which is an organisation which includes most of the insurance companies of this country, have actually given an assurance that the increased amounts will be paid up to the time the insurance will be renewed and then the necessary stipulation will be put into the new policy but, in the meantime, these increased benefits will be paid. I think that this is the sort of thing that can be done only by agreement. I do not know much about the law but I should be surprised to learn that we could compel anybody to depart from his contract by our passing a Bill through this House and through this Oireachtas. I think, in fact, that it would be unfair to do it. If they enter into a contract to pay a certain premium for a certain benefit, I think it would be unfair that the Dáil could compel them to accept terms which were quite different from what they contracted for. In the past, they agreed to do it. This time, they agree to do it. I think that is the most we can get. There may be certain insurance offices not included in the Accident Offices Association, as they call it. Ifthere are any such offices operating in this country, they have not given us any undertaking to do it. In the past they did. I do not think this clause will alter the situation in the least. I do not know if it would be operative. I have no objection to the clause except that I do not think it would be effective.
Have these discussions taken place between the Accident Offices Association and the Department?
Yes, and they have agreed to do it.
Does it cover the non-tariff offices?
No. All that I can say is that they agreed to do it in the past.
There is a tendency at the moment on the part of non-tariff companies, in particular, to use every possible method they can to evade their liability. In particular, I refer to motor insurance. Under the 1933 Act, it is compulsory to insure your car if you put it on the road. We find now, in a number of cases, endorsement on the policies, excluding passengers. I am not referring to farepaying passengers. I know of two cases in Dublin which happened recently. One was of a young lady who was very seriously injured in a collision between two cars. The driver of the car in which she was travelling was absolutely to blame. He was convinced that he was fully insured, but when his policy was examined it was found that he was not entitled to carry passengers. That is one of the methods now adopted by insurance companies to evade their liability. It is surprising how unscrupulous insurance companies can become. I am not referring to tariff companies now. Unfortunately, there is a liking for the cheaper class of policy. I am afraid we are all attracted towards the cheaper class of policy, but it is the dearer policy in the long run. I think that this clause would be equally advantageous to both employer and employee and, if the Minister has noserious objection to the amendment, I think he should accept it.
The Minister has indicated that discussions took place between his Department and representatives of the Accident Offices Association. That association covers the great majority of the tariff offices and these discussions have resulted in an undertaking being given by all the tariff offices. The tariff offices are quite satisfied to meet the additional liability that may devolve upon them and to make adjustments in respect of new policies. Apparently the non-tariff offices are not prepared to accept this undertaking. The fact that the tariff offices accepted this as a decent gesture shows that they will accept this obligation, whatever it may be, as set out in the amendment.
I think, therefore, there is nothing unreasonable in asking the non-tariff offices to accept the obligations imposed on them by this Bill in view of the fact that the tariff offices have already agreed to give the policy-holders the benefits which will flow to them by reason of the agreement to meet whatever additional liability devolves on the company through this Bill. I think the Minister must agree that to accept this amendment would not impose any hardship on anybody. After all, the tariff offices have agreed. That, therefore, ought to be a pattern worthy of emulation by the non-tariff offices. If they are not prepared, voluntarily, to do so, I do not think it is unreasonable for the House to say that we are merely asking them to conform in the same way as the tariff offices so far as this piece of legislation is concerned.
They did not refuse.
I do not want to discuss the affairs of non-tariff offices in this House but Deputy O'Donnell has said something sufficient to fertilise the minds of Deputies as to the kind of treatment a policy-holder might expect to receive in respect of an insurance with some of the non-tariff offices. As I have already said, the tariff offices have agreed to do it but if other people—because they want to take advantage of the existing policies—are not agreeable, then I do not think it is unreasonable for the State to say, in the interests of the policy-holder and the insured worker: "You must take this liability and meet your obligations."
You are giving the insured an opportunity of transferring to the tariff company?
Yes.
The Minister negotiated with the tariff group. I should like to say, in fairness to many insurance offices, that it is because of certain circumstances that passenger liability is excluded from policies. The Road Traffic Act does not require passenger liability to be covered when they are issuing these policies. In fact, passenger liability is not covered in respect of commercial vehicles except by special extension. It is covered in respect of private motor vehicles because they are used to carry passengers, and it is done without any extra charge. In the case of commercial vehicles, it is much better for the passenger liability to be covered by way of extra charge. In fairness to the tariff offices and to the non-tariff offices who exclude liability cover in respect of passengers, it should be understood that passenger liability restriction is applied only because of certain circumstances such as a novice driver, a dangerous driver, an habitual drunkard, and so forth. Has the Minister made the inquiry from the non-tariff offices which he has made from the Accident Offices Association, which represents the tariff offices?
The tariff offices have an organisation which speaks for the lot, but the non-tariff offices have no organisation, so we are not able to get in touch with them.
I have not got the same reluctance as Deputy Norton to discuss the affairs of insurance companies in the House, for one very good reason,that this amendment is put down because we were legally advised in my organisation that it would be desirable to have it. That happened since the passing of the previous amending Acts and it is possible that the experience in respect of giving effect to this has given rise to the background of this legal advice. I might put the other point of view, that those of us who have to deal through the trade union organisation with workmen's compensation cases are well aware that immediately a case comes to be dealt with and we contact the legal advisers, almost the first question that arises is the type of company we are going to have to deal with. Very often, knowing the type of company, we know what are going to be the difficulties.
With regard to this amendment, I was advised personally to put it down, and the advice was given by members of the legal profession because of a feeling that there was a possibility to be guarded against. Inasmuch as the Minister has not expressed any great opposition to it, I ask him to accept it. I can quite understand that he might have some doubts as to the effectiveness of the amendment in its present form, but if we could agree on the desirability of having some clause like this, the Minister could look at the wording and see if it met the purposes of the House because we are all agreed that, if there is this danger, it should be guarded against.
We have an undertaking so far as the accident offices are concerned, but that undertaking does not and cannot apply to the insurance companies who are not represented by that accident office, and it is quite clear that we have nothing in the way of a cast-iron undertaking which we would readily accept from the offices represented by that collective organisation. We cannot expect other people to be bound by an undertaking which they have not given. That is the difficulty we are up against. There does appear to be some apprehension in the minds of those who have to deal with the matter, and it was from them the suggestion came that we should put down the amendment.
There is the difficulty that the Accident Offices Association will be agreeable to carry the increased liability, but it will be on the understanding that, when the policies are renewed, there may be an increased premium. One man may have only a month to run, while another man may have 11 months to run. The companies will probably take some sort of average and decide on some increase after a period of six months. If the Accident Offices Association are agreeable to do that, you are putting an obligation on them, as well as on the non-tariff companies, by this agreement to carry any policy which is in operation now for the remainder of the period without any increased premium. The amendment says: "... until such policy of insurance is varied by agreement," but the holder may say that he will not agree.
They can disagree and that would give the insured an opportunity of transferring to another company.
I am arguing on behalf of the insurance companies at the moment. An insurance company under this amendment would have to carry the increased risk for, say, the following ten months and the insured person could say: "You will have to carry it and I will not agree to any change". Is there any way out of that?
I understood on the previous occasion that, for current policies, the companies decided they would carry the liability and whatever adjustments were made would be made in respect of future policies. There was no tie-back associated with the then running policy.
They will probably take some sort of average time, because it would be obviously unfair to do otherwise. Suppose they say they must charge an increased premium of a certain percentage. I have no idea what the percentage may be, but let us say it is 10 per cent. for purposes of illustration. A man whose premium becomes due in a month's time must commence paying the 10 per cent. from that date, while the man whosepremium is not due for another 11 months would not commence paying it until then. Instead of that, the companies will probably decide to average it and say that, whether the policy expires or not, the increased premium for everybody will start in six months' time, so that the person whose premium did not fall due until some time more than six months ahead would have a certain amount of arrears to pay.
If there was no agreement, it would be open to the company to say that they would not accept the additional risk imposed by this section.
They must accept it under this, I think.
That is what we are trying to ensure, that they must. Is that not the purpose of the amendment? It is essential that we should have an amendment of this kind. I can see the Minister's point of view quite clearly, but surely mutual agreement gives the parties the right to adjust. Suppose the insured says: "I will not pay the increased premium". The company, then, unless this amendment is inserted, may have the option of saying that they will not carry the additional risk. This amendment will ensure that they will carry it.
The position in this regard is that when the scale of compensation on the last occasion was increased, it became operative as from a certain date. The insurance offices sent out notices to their policy-holders stating that, as from such a date, the increased benefits would be payable and that, from that date, the premium would be increased by 12½ per cent. In some cases, there were four months and seven months to run, as well as policies which had a month to run, and in that notice the holders were informed that, if they did not notify the insurance company that these terms were unacceptable, it would be taken that it was in order to keep the policy in force. I think that is the way the insurance companies will deal with it on this occasion also. It is obvious that the premiums will be increased inconsequence of these increased benefits and that probably a notification will be issued to all policy-holders that they have the option of refusing to pay the increased charge in respect of the remaining period until renewal did and thereafter or accepting the new terms.
That is exactly what will happen.
There is a clause which provides for a return of wages and subsequent adjustment of the premium up or down, with retrospective effect, so from that point of view the insurance companies are quite adequately protected, to the extent that they deal with the matter in good faith. The other point which we should bear in mind, from the point of view of the merits of the principle of the amendment, is that the amendment in the previous amending Act of 1948 and also that made by the Emergency Powers Order was a straightforward increase in the rate of payments. In the present case, whether we finally dispose of the Bill on the basis of the Minister's amendment or the other amendments on the Order Paper, there would be a fairly radical change in the system of payments.
The amendment is on the basis of the percentage. There is some apprehension that there might be reluctance on the part of some insurance companies to cover these increased liabilities, especially where the liabilities are of a new character as is envisaged in the present Bill. I would again press upon the Minister, since he has no opposition in principle, to accept the amendment. We will certainly be glad to be guided by him as to the most suitable words which could be considered on Report Stage.
If the Minister decides to meet the matter in principle, would he circulate the amendment early so that we might see it?
Yes.
Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:—
Before Section 3, to insert a new section as follows:—
Where a workman is entitled to a weekly payment by way of compensation under the Acts of 1897 and 1900, the Act of 1906, the Act of 1934 or the Act of 1948, in respect of any week commencing on or after the appointed day, then, notwithstanding any statutory provision to the contrary, he shall, whether the accident giving rise to the compensation happened before, on or after the appointed day, be entitled in respect of that week to 75 per cent. of his pre-accident average weekly earnings.
The subject matter of this amendment was discussed at considerable length on the Second Reading of the Bill. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for an increase in workmen's compensation for the married man with a wife and one child and the married man with a wife and two children. If he meets with an accident and suffers total incapacity he will receive a basic payment of 50/- a week, 12/- for his wife, 7/- for each of two children, making a total of 76/-. That will be paid to him provided it does not exceed 75 per cent. of his average weekly earnings. So far as the single man or single woman is concerned this Bill provides no increase in compensation whatever and as the existing maximum rate of compensation, 50/- per week, was fixed as long ago as 1948 and has not been increased since, we feel very strongly that if you recognise the necessity for an increase so far as the married man is concerned, you must in some respect at least recognise that a rate of compensation which was fixed in 1948 cannot be regarded as an equitable rate in 1953 in view of the fact that the cost of living has increased by 25 per cent. since the 50/- rate was fixed in 1948.
This amendment seeks quite frankly to make a new approach to the whole question of assessing the compensation of injured workmen. The practice under the 1934 Act and prior to the 1934 Act, continued by the 1943 EmergencyPowers Order and the 1948 amending Act, was to fix a ceiling which was ultimately raised to 50/- The Acts provided that a person could get compensation, if he met with an accident, to the extent of 75 per cent. of his average weekly earnings subject, however, to a maximum of 50/- per week. Where the injured workman was in receipt of a very low rate of pay he could get 75 per cent. of his earnings as compensation if he met with an accident because he still could operate within this 50/- ceiling.
Where the injured workman was in receipt of £8 per week, let us say, or received as weekly compensation only 50/- weekly, 75 per cent. of his average weekly earnings would entitle him to £6 per week. If he had £6 per week he would, if getting 75 per cent. of his earnings, be entitled to compensation at the rate of £4 10s. per week; but because of the ceiling of 50/- he could never get more than 50/-.
We had this anomaly, therefore, that the Bill declared a man to be entitled to 75 per cent. of his weekly pay—we feel that was a desirable percentage to pay him—but then imposed a ceiling of 50/- which, in fact, meant that, while the State pretended to give him an entitlement of 75 per cent. of his pay, by the device of fixing a ceiling of 50/- it prevented him getting the 75 per cent. of his pay, and in many cases he got less than 33? per cent. while ill as the result of an accident.
This amendment, therefore, seeks to make a new approach to the problem. We think it is not unreasonable, particularly as this matter is on an insurance basis, that an employer should be required to pay 75 per cent. of the wages of the injured workman during his incapacity. It is a risk which can be foreseen. It is a risk which can be measured. I think nobody will attempt to say that in a reasonable and humanitarian approach to the problem of workmen's compensation we are acting extravagantly in giving an injured workman 75 per cent. of his pay during injury. In fact, a strong case could be made not only on moral and ethical grounds but also oneconomic grounds for the payment of full wages to a workman while he is injured.
This amendment does not make such a radical break with the past. It seeks to ensure that in the future the injured workman will be able to get 75 per cent. of his wages if he sustains an injury in the course of or arising out of his employment. The benefits which will flow from the acceptance of this amendment in this Bill will be of considerable advantage not only to married men, their wives and children, but to single men as well.
In this Bill we are proposing to do nothing whatever to increase the compensation for a single man or woman. I do not know how the Minister can justify introducing an amending Bill of this kind which leaves completely untouched the scale of compensation provided for five years ago when the cost of living was substantially lower than it is to-day. Since then there have been three rounds of wage increases so far as outside workers are concerned. In 1948 you had the first round. In 1950-51 you had the second and in 1952-53 you had the third. On an average, these adjustments of wages meant increases of from 33/- to 40/- per week.
Although all these things have happened since 1948, we propose to leave untouched the scale of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act fixed in 1948 in relation to the cost of living operative at that time. I think it is not fair to leave the single man or woman in that position nor do I think, viewing the problem from the humanitarian and social point of view, that it is fair for us to continue any longer the ceiling which is imposed on compensation payable under the Act.
I think, therefore, that without distinction of Party and basing our approach on an examination of the plight of the injured workman, we ought now to recognise that there is no justification whatever for the continuance of the practice of imposing a low ceiling so far as workmen's compensation is concerned. This amendment, therefore, seeks to establish the principle that, as a matter of legal right, the injured workman will be entitledto compensation at the rate of not less than 75 per cent. of his average pre-accident earnings. I think the amendment is a reasonable one and it is offered to the House on its own merits. I think it should be accepted without any reference to the different political distinctions in the House.
This amendment would require very serious consideration. It is a difficult amendment to discuss. Here we are wiping out the ceiling in workmen's compensation cases. I have a lot of sympathy with it, but find it difficult to give it my wholehearted support. In the past, workmen were very much victimised by the Legislature. I know of a case of a workman who was permanently incapacitated in 1937. He was awarded 30/- a week. That has never been increased and he is still being paid only 30/-.
Could he not get an increase?
I do not think so. Though 30/- was not given as the ceiling, it coincided with the amount which was based on 75 per cent. of his pre-accident earnings.
Under the 1948 Act he could have gone to court about it and got it increased.
I wonder could he?
It was definitely put in to enable him to do so, and it has happened.
It is only in the last few days I have been informed of the case and I certainly would not like to express an opinion on it.
The section was put into the 1948 Act because of anomalies of that kind.
I am glad to know that. This amendment refers to permanent incapacity. If the pre-accident earnings were £6 a week he was living at a certain social standard, which will deteriorate very much if we put him on the 50/- basis. It would not deteriorate to the same extent if he receivedcompensation at the rate of 75 per cent. of his average weekly earnings—but I wonder what would be the impact on the premiums? That might be a very serious matter. The proposal might defeat its object.
In the case of big business concerns, it is almost obligatory on the employers to insure their employees; but I am thinking of the employees in rural Ireland where very often the employer tries to evade the responsibility of paying the premium.
What class of an employee have you in mind?
A handyman about a garage.
What pay would he have?
£4.
If he is a married man with a wife and two children, he gets 75 per cent. under this Bill as it stands; if he is a single man he does not, or if he is a skilled mechanic he does not.
I can see arguments for and against. It is difficult to make up one's mind on the amendment. It is one I would like to hear discussed in detail and I, personally, will keep an open mind on it for the present.
It is very easy to be led into the belief that this amendment would be more appropriate to a Bill which would completely recast, on a comprehensive basis, the workmen's compensation code. That might be the most ready argument one could make against the amendment. Right through the Workmen's Compensation Acts there has been this reference to the percentage of earnings. We know the background that existed in the earlier years of the century to the conception of employer's liability in respect of accidents sustained by his workmen and also the general social concept in sustaining the members of the community who through natural illness or accident were not able to fend for themselves. That led to the imposition of the ceiling, so as to limit the effect of the percentage calculation for compensation.
Even in that respect, the rate of compensation was varied. In the case of earnings below £1, the ceiling was 80 per cent.; where they were over £1, the ceiling was reduced to 75 per cent. The setting down of the ceiling applying to the percentage calculation showed very clearly in the code the general social concept towards the claims of sick or injured workmen on the community as a whole. The immediate background to that approach was the earlier concept that an employer had no obligation to his workmen except where actual negligence had been proved. When the original ceiling was proposed at 35/—it was reduced to 30/- in the 1934 Act—it reflected the social outlook at the time and the approach of the Legislature to it. That background has now altered. In the Second Reading debate on the present Bill, there was general acceptance that there is greater responsibility on the employer now for injured workmen than would have been accepted 30 years ago. It was unanimously agreed that the effect on insurance companies should be excluded from the argument altogether. In proposing the amendment and basing the weekly payments on the 75 per cent., we are merely translating into legal form the general conception that would be held by all sides in the House.
The Minister might still argue that that matter should be left over for discussion on a more comprehensive Bill. In the Second Reading debate we have referred to the change in money values. It has been indicated that in 1934 a payment of 30/- represented a certain standard and to sustain that standard in present-day money values a certain figure, roughly 69/-, should replace that 30/-.
There is the other aspect, too. In the period 1934 to 1938 we had certain wage levels operating. For the general unskilled workers in the larger towns and cities the average wage in good employment was 50/- to 60/- per week.
Therefore when an injured workman came to depend upon the maximum weekly payment which he couldreceive under the Act, 30/- at that time, if he was in receipt of a wage of 50/- the weekly payment represented 60 per cent. of his wages. If we go to the other end of the wage scale so far as labour is concerned, say, 60/- or 65/-, they were still receiving not less than half of their normal wages. In the case of skilled workmen whose wages ran to £4 or £4 10s. per week they also received in or about half of their normal wages.
The position is altered to-day. The old rates of 50/- to 60/- are now running from about 90/-, taking the lowest scale for road workers and farm labourers; but in the better paid employments a rate of 140/- is paid. Therefore, if we relate the present ceiling to this figure we find there has been a marked drop. In the case of the better paid labourer, on the basis of the figure of 50/—I am excluding the question of supplemental payments as suggested for the wife and children— he would be receiving something in the neighbourhood of 35 per cent. As regards the skilled workman whose wages were £4 5s. before the war and who is now in receipt of about 168/-, if he meets with an accident now and has to depend upon the present ceiling of 50/- as a single man, we will in fact be asking him to maintain himself on a payment representing less than 30 per cent. of his normal wages.
These are aspects of the matter that require consideration irrespective of any change in our basic approach. In so far as the case of the lower paid workman is concerned the difference between adopting the principle of the 75 per cent. without any ceiling and pursuing the matter on the basis of the amendment set down by the Minister, is very small. We are left largely with the question as to the justification for employing the 75 per cent. calculation without a ceiling in respect of workmen who enjoy high rates of wages, better paid labourers and the craftsmen.
Quite clearly it is difficult to argue that where the workman does meet with an accident there can be found any justification for expecting him in that period of sickness—because sickness in itself, as we all know, always imposes certain additional burdens—to sustain himself on less than one-third of what he normally receives. It is from that point of view that the strongest argument lies to remove the ceiling and allow the Act to operate on the basis of the percentage that has been in the Act over many years.
Does the Deputy agree that the acceptance of this amendment would necessitate the wiping out of Section 3?
Yes. That is laid down.
Yes. One other aspect I would mention is that at the moment social service payments in respect of sickness in the case of a single man provide him with a sum of 24/- per week. In many employments to-day, provision is already made in the form of sick pay schemes whereby there is anything from half to full wages paid in the form of sick pay with a deduction in respect of social service payments. The average would be probably around 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. of normal wages. We now find ourselves in the difficulty that workmen who meet with accidents are very reluctant now to come and claim under the Act because of the penalty placed upon them of having to depend on the 50/- ceiling under the Act as against the much higher payments they receive if they merely report sick in the ordinary way. We should have regard to that aspect of the matter.
Recently I personally had the experience of dealing with such a case and of trying to advise a workman who had met with a fairly minor accident and who possibly would recover in the course of a few weeks. He was going to suffer the loss of 26/- per week depending on whether he would claim compensation or merely report sick. It was very hard to convince him that he should bear in mind that, once he gave up his claim, if he suffered any permanent ill-effects from the accident he had forfeited his legal rights. It is particularly difficult in the case of the working man who suffers a minor injury to get him to appreciate that there is no guarantee that the minorinjury might not have very long term effects.
From the point of view of the House we are not merely concerned with providing reasonable compensation for the workman. It is also important that we do it in such a way that the workman will desire to take it and not feel that he would be better off if he forgoes his claim under the Act and tries to meet his expenses in regard to sickness arising out of an accident by claiming as an ordinary employee of a company where there are sick pay schemes.
This has become a very difficult problem particularly in the larger employments where there are fair conditions and where the rightful claims of workmen against employers in a period of sickness, are being met within reason. We have now got this conflict as between our conception of what a workman should receive when he meets with an accident and what a private employer concedes so far as ordinary sickness is concerned.
I think it will be agreed by everybody that what has been said here by Deputy Norton and Deputy Larkin would be the approach of every Deputy in the House and of every well-meaning individual in the country. There are, however, some difficulties which I think it is just as well that we should realise. As I read this amendment it provides that where the accident occurred before or after the appointed day the person would be entitled to have his compensation fixed at 75 per cent. of his pre-accident average weekly earnings.
Here is the difficulty I see in this regard. We know about insurance companies but the law of this country does not recognise them. Every case of workmen's compensation is between the particular workman and the particular employer. Everybody knows that in the majority of cases there is an insurance company at the back of the employer but in law it is two individuals, two citizens. Where under the legislation an employer who is an ordinary citizen is obliged to pay a sum of, say, 50/- a week to a workman no law we can pass in this House can obligethat employer to pay 60/-. If it was passed into law in this House it would be considered by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional and an interference with the rights of an individual. I think Deputy Norton and Deputy Larkin will agree.
Would he not be able to safeguard himself by insurance?
No. Insurance companies are out of it. They do not exist as far as the law is concerned. It is the very same thing where you have a child or a man run down by a motor car. We have compulsory insurance there.
Would you concede that so in respect of the 76/-?
No, because the 76/- provided under the Act is in respect of injuries sustained after the appointed day.
No.
It is.
The Minister said that the companies have agreed to carry the risks involved in the higher rates.
Very well. The insurance companies may.
For future accidents.
And for past accidents.
So long as the Minister gets the insurance companies to accept that, well and good. Nobody will have any objection to it, but I am thinking of the situation of an ordinary individual who is obliged by law to pay 50/- a week now. No law passed by this Dáil can oblige that individual to pay 60/-, 66/- or 70/- a week. While the Minister may have got an agreement from the insurance companies, outside the insurance companies altogether, there are individual employers who cannot be dealt with in that way.
Did the 1948 Act not increase the compensation?
The 1948 Act providedfor increases in compensation, but I am dealing with the legal position of an individual who was obliged by law at the time of the accident to pay compensation to the amount, say, of 20/- or 30/- a week.
I understood to-day that the 1948 Act provided for increased compensation in the case of pre-Act accidents.
The law may provide for it but the matter may not have been tested. It is a very serious position, I think, that where your law says an employer must pay 30/- a week compensation, you come along later with a sub-section saying that he must pay 50/- a week. In my view, our Supreme Court would hold that that was unconstitutional, that it would be an interference with the rights of the individual employer.
That is one of the difficulties I see in the Bill. I agree that compensation for workmen should be increased. Payments are inadequate at present but if we are going to increase them we shall have to increase them by means of a State fund that would subsidise these payments. If I am an employer who employed one workman 20 years ago and that workman was injured and I was bound by law to pay him 20/- a week, any law that would be passed now to make me pay that man 60/- a week would, in my view, be an unconstitutional interference with my position.
That is my view, too.
I think we should face that situation but we shall have to face it in this way. I thoroughly agree with the case Deputy Larkin and Deputy Norton made but if we are going to provide increases for people who have had already their compensation fixed by law, we shall have to do it by means of a State fund or some other fund that the Minister will have to establish. That is one of the difficulties as I see it. So far as future payments are concerned for accidents that occur after theappointed day, I think it is reasonable that the workmen concerned should be paid 75 per cent. of their earnings. That is right but all these things drive one to the conclusion that, before a satisfactory solution can be arrived at, there will have to be some form of compulsory insurance or there will have to be a State scheme—one or the other. We have got to face that fact.
I should like the House seriously to consider the implications that can arise for a small trader away in the country who is obliged by law to pay 30/- a week to a former workman and who is paying it. Is it just that we should come along now and say to that trader: "You must pay double the amount?" I do not think any Deputy would say it is. I do not say that the injured man should not get an increase but if he gets an increase we, as the Dáil, should take the responsibility to provide for this increase out of some fund.
I think Deputy Norton will appreciate that point because he has given a considerable amount of consideration to these problems. I should hate to see going out of this Dáil a Bill providing benefits for workmen which the courts might hold was not constitutional or within the powers of the House in regard to some particular section. I think that would create a state of chaos that would be undesirable and wrong. That is the trouble with the amendment because the amendment provides for two things, one for injuries that occurred prior to the appointed day and the other for injuries that occur subsequent to the appointed day. I should like to hear the Minister's views on this matter. I am perfectly certain that the Minister must have been advised on this aspect and I should like to know what he has to say in regard to it. So far as I am concerned, I am doubtful about our power to do it, although I am anxious we should do it.
Take the case of a man who was injured two years ago and who is still drawing 50/- per week compensation. During those two years, there has been a considerable increase in wages. Am I to understand fromDeputy Cowan that we are not entitled, notwithstanding the fact that wages have gone up by, say, £1 per week since, to legislate to increase the amount of compensation payable to that man from 50/- to £3?
I am afraid you cannot.
There seems to be a doubt about our power to do it. I would hate to have an appeal upheld by the courts on that point.
Mr. A. Byrne
Cases in point will occur to most of us where an injured workman has been continuously in receipt of 50/- per week for some years past. I thought that by some form of legislation we might be able to provide for an increase in his compensation. It appears now that, although the payment is entirely inadequate, having regard to the manner in which the cost of living has increased, we cannot provide for any increase at all. The cost of living has gone up, some people say, by 30, 40 or 50 per cent. since the rate of compensation was fixed, with the result that these people are suffering very considerable hardship.
One does not like to mention names in this House but I am practically certain that every Deputy has been approached or has had some complaint made to him about particular cases from time to time. I happen to know the case of a man—I think he was a carpenter—who has a couple of children and I understand that for the last two years he has been in receipt of 50/- a week compensation. Now we are told that he cannot get 6d. extra even if we agree to increase the compensation under this Bill.
There are several of these cases.
Mr. A. Byrne
Will the Minister help us to do something to provide for such cases even if, as Deputy Cowan says, it involved a subsidy from some State funds? We are now told that the very large number of people in Dublin City who are trying to exist on inadequate payments of 50/- a week cannot get as much as 6d. of anincrease to meet the cost of living, no matter what we do in this Bill. I think the Minister would get the wholehearted support of every Deputy in the House for any proposal that would give an immediate increase in compensation to the victims of accidents who are admittedly being paid inadequate amounts at the moment. It is all very fine to ask the Minister to be sympathetic but Deputy Cowan has made the point that in law we cannot compel employers to pay these increased amounts. The Minister might be able to subsidise them out of some other funds. We could all mention half a dozen cases of people with inadequate pay who will not get any other form of assistance other than unemployment assistance. I heard of a case where an individual received £150 by way of compensation for injuries received in an accident and no national health benefits were paid to the individual until the £150 had been exhausted. I do not know whether I am right or wrong in that.
There is an explanation for that.
Mr. A. Byrne
When this girl received the £150 compensation, benefit was withheld until that sum had been exhausted. In view of the fact that there has been an increase of some 30 per cent. in the cost of living I appeal to the Minister to do something to remedy the present position. People in receipt of these inadequate sums are suffering grave hardship.
With relation to the proposed retrospective effect of this amendment, I think we should look at this matter from the point of view that under the existing law if a man has a contract of employment with an employee he is liable under existing legislation for the payment of compensation to that employee should an accident happen. If we increase the compensation paid weekly at this stage any such increase should be paid out of general taxation rather than by any other method. If an accident happened some years back and the employer was liable, then he has been paying compensationfor some considerable time at so much per week. The liability was quite clear under the existing legislation at the time. It would be very unfair now to come along and say to that employer that he must pay increased benefits, or even possibly less than he has been paying up to the present. Indeed, it would be even more unfair to reduce it because the workman had a contract and certain legislation applied. Therefore, it would be unfair to either increase or reduce the scale of benefits payable at the time of the accident unless that increase is met by way of general taxation and not out of the pocket of the employer.
We must disregard the fact that many employers are insured, but until about ten years ago the vast majority had not taken out an insurance policy for their workmen. That is particularly true of the employer who employs one man or casual labour. Retrospective effect in relation to this amendment would be very unfair. I think it would be unconstitutional and any individual who might find himself affected would have a right of appeal against it because he would find imposed upon him a liability that did not exist under the legislation then extant at the time the accident happened when there was a definite contract between him and his employee.
There are two fundamental principles involved in this amendment. The first is the putting of married and single men on a par and the second is the wiping out of a ceiling other than 75 per cent. of the pre-accident earnings. I think it is really a minor matter as to whether the compensation should be in respect of accidents which occurred prior to this Bill becoming law. I think that is a minor issue. The principal issue is the putting of married and single men on a par and, secondly, the fixing of a ceiling.
I have a very open mind in this matter and I think there is a considerable amount to be said for the amendment in so far as it puts married and single men and married and single women on a par. Section 3, as it stands, is a bar against aninjured man ever entering into the contract of matrimony. An injured man, no matter what his pre-accident earnings may be, is merely entitled to 75 per cent. and, if he marries after the accident and if he has a family of ten children, as the section stands, he can obtain no increase in his 50/- compensation. In other words, there is no inducement to a young man in receipt of compensation to marry. That is the fault I find with Section 3 as it stands.
Secondly, take the case of a married man, permanently disabled, with a family. No provision is made under Section 3 for compensation in respect of any child born later than nine months after the date of the accident. Should there be ten more children, that man will receive no further compensation in respect of any of those ten children. I think that is a very bad principle. As I said on the Second Reading, it does nothing to encourage families. There is no doubt about that. I strongly recommend the section in so far as it puts married and single men on a par because that will be an encouragement to single men, who are injured, to marry and have families. From that point of view there is a considerable amount to be said for the amendment.
With regard to the ceiling, I would certainly favour 75 per cent. of the pre-accident earnings, subject to a ceiling, and I think that ceiling should be fixed irrespective of whether the applicant is married or not. I think the Labour Party tabled a motion here to increase compensation to £4 10s. a week. If there could be agreement on a ceiling such as that, then there is a lot to be said for the amendment. As to the point raised by Deputy Cowan as to whether it is constitutional to legislate for pre-Bill accidents, I think we did that under the 1948 Act.
We did it in 1943 under an Emergency Powers Order as well.
The 1948 Act is different from this.
I agree it is different and, as Deputy Cowan said, it would be interesting to hear the views of theMinister on this matter before we discuss it any further.
The point was raised by Deputy Hickey and Deputy A. Byrne that this Bill purports to give increased benefits to married men who are drawing benefit at the moment; that is, it will deal with cases where the accident occurred before the appointed day.
As I say, the Bill purports to do that, but whether there is anything in the point raised by Deputy Cowan I do not know, although I think there is a lot in it, and that it would be considered very unfair, especially in the case of a man in poor circumstances, that he should be compelled to increase benefit to a person who was already drawing benefit. If a case like that went to the court, I do not know what might happen. The same type of amendment was brought in several times before and no case ever went to the court. All we can hope for is that no case will go to court and that the man will be paid. There is a new principle suggested now and it is that the State should pay the difference.
Is the Minister suggesting that no case went to the court under the 1948 Act?
I do not know. This is a constitutional question and I do not know whether Deputy Cowan is right or not. It was never tested. Deputy Hickey raised a point about a person who, let us say, eight or ten years ago got compensation on his pre-accident wage. The Deputy's point was that if that man were working now he would be getting a higher wage and maybe better compensation. Well, if wages go up the court has power to take that into account and make an adjustment on that plea.
Deputy O'Donnell is against the differentiation between single and married men. When we passed the Social Welfare Act we extended that principle. Previous to the passing of that Act, those who were drawing national benefit got no allowance whatever for a wife or children, but the principle was extended under that Act. Although the principle was there for unemployed, the position was improved for a man with dependents. Ido not think anyone raised an objection to that in the discussions on the Social Welfare Act. I think everyone was agreeable to the principle of giving more to the man with dependents than to the man without dependents. I was rather surprised to find Deputy O'Donnell saying that he was against that principle. There is, of course, as Deputy O'Donnell says, in this Bill a bar, if you like, put on the man, who marries after an accident, getting benefit for his wife and for his children. This is an interim measure and it was impossible to do anything else. I think we can allow the provision that is there to remain. I am not defending it or saying that it should be there for all time. When we are dealing with the comprehensive measure we can decide whether we should, or should not, carry on that bar against a person who marries getting benefit for his wife and the children that may be born afterwards.
As far as the principle of this amendment is concerned, I would not be against it, perhaps, if I were asked to consider it in detail. I might perhaps offer certain qualifications. Deputy O'Donnell says that there should be some ceiling. I think myself there should be. Take, for example, the case of a manual worker who might be earning £20 a week. He is working for a small employer as a plasterer, or in some other capacity, and meets with an accident. I am sure no Deputy would seriously suggest that this small employer should have to pay him £14 or £15 a week for the rest of his life. The employer could not possibly do it. If we had to consider the 75 per cent. we would have to consider a ceiling, and that would not be departing from the principle already there. It is, however, a new principle to have this 75 per cent. without any ceiling. I am not against the principle of 75 per cent., as such, but as I say there are arguments against an unqualified 75 per cent.
Let us take some salary that we can all agree on, say £1,000. Nobody has suggested that a man with that salary should come into the Workmen's Compensation Act. The reason is that such a man should be able to providefor himself. He can do that either through savings, insurance or by some other method. If we go down the line a bit and take the man with a salary of £800, he, too, should be able to provide for himself. The Labour Party say no—that he should come in. Well, that is not a serious point and is one that could be considered. We could go down the line still further. There should be some grading. What I mean is that the obligation on a person to provide for himself should be on a graded scale. Take the man with £500 a year. If this Bill goes through, he is going to get, in present circumstances, 50/- a week, for his wife another 12/- and for children two more 7/-. Deputies may say that is not enough. Well, he can supplement it by paying a small premium to an insurance company.
Judging by some insurance policies that I have seen, and the premiums that are charged by companies to employers, he should be able to supplement these payments by paying a premium of £5 or £6 a year. Are we going to follow the principle that we should legislate for those who cannot possibly provide for themselves, and to the extent to which they cannot do so, and for those who can provide partially for themselves? I think the latter should be encouraged to do that. As regards those who can fully provide for themselves, I think we should leave them alone.
I think there are arguments which could be put up to say that this unqualified 75 per cent. is not necessary, or, in fact, not advisable. As I have said, as long as we have present conditions, it might ruin a small employer to the extent that he could never pay it. In fact it could not be done unless we had a nationalised scheme or a compulsory insurance scheme. That brings me to the point, which I argued earlier, that a big principle like this should be left aside for the comprehensive Bill. There is no reason why we should not wait until we get it.
If we are going to set up a Dáil Committee or commission to prepare a comprehensive Bill we might leave this question over until we get that Bill. To do so is not going to make any great difference.
I presume, in fact, I think I could say, that if I were to go to the draftsman and say I want a clause like the one contained in this comprehensive amendment in the Bill he would certainly take a fair length of time to draft it and, if I asked him why he would take so long, I am sure his answer would be that he would have to examine all the Acts that were passed and see to what extent they would have to be amended in order to bring this in and it might mean several clauses before the final draft would reach here.
So, for the mere mechanical reason of drafting, I would say that the amendment could not be accepted and if Deputies say to me: "If you agree with it in principle and let us withdraw it and have a draft submitted here to a meeting of the Dáil", I am afraid I would have to say, in that case, that the Report Stage of this Bill would probably have to be put back for at least two or three weeks before it could be dealt with.
I am not inclined to agree to that because I think a big principle like this is certainly a matter for the comprehensive legislation. It is a matter not alone of drafting, not alone of cost, but of a great deal of consideration from every point of view and, if we are going to set up a committee to consider a comprehensive Bill, surely this is one of the biggest questions that could be put to them. If we set up a committee, I take it the very first question they will consider is: are we going to nationalise workmen's compensation, bring it into the social welfare code or are we going to carry on on the same system as we have at the moment? Suppose they decide that it will be nationalised, then I think that any committee would be inclined to keep the same pattern as we have for the social welfare legislation, that is, a stated amount per week for the person concerned, for his dependents, if you like, or not for his dependents, as the case may be. But, as I said, in our social welfare we have followed that pattern of so much for the person concerned and so much for dependents and outside this country the nearest example we have is the British schemewhich is nationalised. They have so much for the working man, so much for his dependents and it is a set amount. It does not matter what the man is earning, it is a set amount. They, I suppose for good reasons, have adopted that system. There may have been arguments against it. The arguments against it may appeal more to us here. I do not know. There must be good arguments for it or they would not adopt it.
Would the Minister not agree that there is a fixed contribution in the case of social welfare?
Yes.
Here there will not be a fixed contribution. Take, for instance, that the employer was paying a premium. That premium would vary with the wages he was paying to the workman and the hazard.
Plus the risk.
The hazard, yes. It will be slightly different from social welfare where you have a fixed contribution.
My answer to that, then, is, if there is a good case—Deputies can make a good case, I suppose, that the man who has a higher wage finds it harder to go to 50/- from £10 than the man who goes from £5—the same argument applies to sickness benefit and to unemployment. How can we make a different argument? If you are going to do that, the next thing you will have to do is to reconsider the whole social welfare scheme and say that if a man gets sick who is earning £10 a week and has a family on a certain standard, it is not fair to say to him: "You must live on 50/-". We must give him more. What different argument could be used for the man who meets with an industrial accident, or the man who gets sick working in the industry?
As I said before, it is all a question of need. The man who gets sick has the same need as the man who meets with an accident and the man who becomes unemployed, of course, has the same need. I cannot see the case fordifferentiation but, if Deputies argue that the same should be done all round, then at least it would be logical but it would be an extremely hard thing to do.
The drafting, of course, would be a very big matter, but it is not an insurmountable difficulty. If I were very much in favour of this scheme and of doing it immediately I quite admit we could get over the drafting difficulty by saying: "Give me a week or two and I will get this done". I think it is really a matter for a comprehensive scheme. Deputies have not expressed their opinions very decisively on whether or not we should set up a committee to consider that scheme. I am quite prepared to set up a committee if it is considered a good thing to do.
Of course, there is the increased cost which always has to be taken into account, naturally. The increased cost of living will, I suppose, make it more difficult for even the man with the higher wage to meet his ordinary needs and it might be argued that the man with the higher wage, if he is a little bit better off, by leaving the cost of living as it is, is able to insure himself against these unforeseen accidents.
There are many arguments that can be put for and against, so many arguments that it is a thing that could not be accepted on the Committee Stage of a small Bill of this kind and certainly should be put back for a comprehensive measure.
One or two points have been raised in the course of this discussion that should be cleared up. Deputy Cowan took the line that this Bill might be declared to be unconstitutional if we impose on an employer a responsibility for paying a higher rate of benefit than that for which he was liable before this Bill became law. I have pointed out already—I certainly pointed out during the course of his speech by way of interjection—that in 1943, by an Emergency Powers Order, we directed an employer to accept liability for paying to an injured workman the sum of 37/6 per week although under the existing legislation hisliability was 30/- per week. So that, in 1943, with our eyes wide open, we said: "Although your contractual obligation is to meet liability not exceeding 30/- per week, by this Order and because of the increased cost of living, you must pay 37/6." That continued from 1943 to 1948. In the 1948 Act we provided that, notwithstanding the terms of the policy or the terms of the legislation up to then existing, in the middle of the policy and during the currency of the policy, the employer was liable to lift that ceiling from 37/6 to 50/- per week. So that, since 1943, on two occasions, we have in fact put on the employer an obligation to pay a higher rate of benefit than that for which he was contractually liable and, even in this Bill, the Minister has admitted that an injured workman, if he is married, who is now receiving compensation at a maximum rate of 50/- per week, awarded in respect of an accident prior to the introduction of this Bill, will have that compensation increased to a maximum of 76/- a week. So that, under this very Bill, the Minister tells us that a person who sustained an accident prior to the introduction of the Bill and who was awarded compensation before this Bill was printed, will have that compensation jerked up to a maximum of 76/- a week even though the employer's contractual liability to the workman is assessed at a maximum of 50/- a week.
What is the position? So far as Deputy Cowan's fears are concerned, the Minister has said that this Bill will in fact create a situation in which the injured workman, the person who sustained that accident prior to the Bill, will have his compensation increased and the obligation to increase it will be imposed on the employer of the injured workman. So that, so far as Deputy Cowan's fears in that respect are concerned, I do not think there is any justification for them.
That evidently wipes them out.
We have two well beaten tracks trod in 1943 and again in 1948 and now an assurance from the Minister that the same practice will be followed so far as this Bill isconcerned. Quite clearly any injured workman with a wife and two children who met with an accident in July, 1952, and who has been getting 50/- per week, when this Bill passes and the appointed date operates, will be entitled to compensation at the rate of 76/-. Therefore I think these contentions effectually dispose of Deputy Cowan's fear.
The Minister spent quite a while in trying to create bogey men so far as the amendment was concerned and trying to play on our legislative fears by telling us of the difficulties which will arise. I cannot see these difficulties from the point of view of operating a 75 per cent. arrangement so far as the workman is concerned. After the passing of this Bill, an injured workman with a wife and two children who had a wage of £5 per week and who is now receiving compensation at the rate of 50/- per week will automatically get 75 per cent. of his pre-accident earnings. But if his wages amounted to more than £5, whether they were £6, £7 or £8, he will be denied the 75 per cent. compensation which he would get if he had £5 per week.
If we can operate the 75 per cent. arrangement so far as a man with a wife and two children and a wage of £5 is concerned, where is the difficulty in applying that to a man in receipt of £6, £7 or £8 per week? There is no difficulty whatever. The effect of the Minister's amendment, in fact, is to apply, so far as the mechanics of payment are concerned, the 75 per cent. scheme to those in receipt of a wage not exceeding £5 per week, provided they have a wife and two children.
The Minister talked about a plasterer earning £20 per week when working for a small employer. The small employer who can employ a plasterer at £20 ought to be brought into this House so that we might have a look at the exhibit. What a plasterer with £20 a week would be doing with a small employer without the other trappings and fittings of the building industry, I do not know. It is a long time since I saw a small employer employing a £20 a week carpenter, and I bet that phenomenon has not beenwith us for a very long time. I bet that very few Deputies, even those in the building trade, have been privileged to see a £20 a week carpenter employed by a small employer. You may take it, in any case, that a builder employing a £20 per week carpenter has a pretty decent profit on that £20 per week carpenter, judging by the prices going for houses when carpenters could get £20 per week.
There is one point on which the Minister has been singularly silent. We have been asked not to try to amend the Bill radically, to be satisfied with it as just an interim measure to keep things going for 12 months when we will get a comprehensive Bill. Frankly, I do not believe we will get a comprehensive Bill in 12 months. I would wager that we will not see it in 12 months. In the meantime, what is to happen to the single man and the single woman? We gave them the maximum rate of benefit of 50/- in 1948. Five years have gone by and the cost of living has increased by 25 per cent. in that period. Are we not going to do anything for them in this Bill? The Minister has not indicated what he proposes to do, whether he has any sympathy with the proposition to increase the 50/-.
So far as he is concerned, they get the maximum rate of compensation of 50/- fixed five years ago. Although the cost of living has increased by 25 per cent. since then, he does not propose to give them one penny per week additional compensation. How can the Minister justify that? The suggestion is that, whatever their prospects may be in the future, they have to wait for a comprehensive Bill. If the Minister maintains this differentiation between single and married persons so far as industrial acidents are concerned, I imagine the outlook for a single man who meets with an accident in the future will be even more grim than it is to-day.
I want to know what is the Government's answer to this. A man who had £4 a week in 1948 was, under the 1948 Act, given compensation at the rate of 50/- per week when he met with an accident. If we take it that a wage of £4 per week in 1948 has gone up byapproximately £2—it may not be that, but let us take that for the purpose of easy calculation—then to-day we are still giving him the 50/- which he got as compensation when his wages were £4. If we thought 50/- was reasonable compensation for him when his wage was £4 surely he ought to get more compensation when his wage is £6. I do not think anyone will attempt to question the ethics or the economics of that contention. If his wages have gone up by one-third, surely the compensation ought to go up, too. The Minister is not providing for any increase, nor has he indicated in his reply that he is any way sympathetically disposed towards increasing the weekly compensation in respect of the person who was given the maximum compensation of 50/- in 1948 and is still in receipt of that maximum sum. Does the Minister intend to say anything on that aspect of the matter?
The Minister has raised a number of general matters upon which we should touch. Should we not try to get rid of the trappings and face up to what is actually involved in respect of the acceptance or rejection of the amendment? So far as the real issue is concerned, it is purely a question of whether or not we think it right and proper to give an injured workman a maximum payment based on 75 per cent. of his wages, irrespective of what the amount is. That is really what it boils down to. In reply to the argument, the Minister has stressed very strongly that so far he has not been given any argument to show what difference there should be in our approach to the payment to a person who becomes sick in the ordinary way as against our approach to the payment of compensation to an injured worker.
I think there is a fundamental difference. We are dealing here with two separate types of incapacity. In the case of the injured workman we are dealing with a man employed by another person and he is not employed for any love, but because the employer can get some money out of him in one way or another. We know that. Weknow there are exceptions where a man is given a job in circumstances of charity and so on, but that is not our workaday work, and we have only got to look at the Minister's labour exchanges to find that if there is not money to be made out of the employment of a person, that person is not employed. That is the first case. Secondly, when we deal with ordinary sickness there are a number of other factors involved. A man can become ill, not merely through providence, or lack of providence, but also through his own neglect or indulgence or carelessness. But in respect of men meeting with accidents through their employment there can be the factor of carelessness, but it is very unlikely that a man is going to put his foot under a machine or his hand under a knife or deliberately step off a scaffold, merely to collect a few shillings. In that regard, so far as he is engaged in another person's employment, and is required to work on the premises on occasions and in conditions determined by his employer, he is not a free agent so far as protecting himself against accidents is concerned.
Take the docker working aboard a ship. He cannot walk around the ship or the quayside or examine all the gear to ensure before he starts working that there are not going to be any accidents —and I am not even thinking of any accident arising from neglect on the part of the employer—and he is required to work in the place, and underconditions that can only be determined by the employer.
He is going to be employed because the employer hopes to make something out of the employment of that worker. That puts the matter in an entirely different situation as compared with the ordinary citizen who, like any other member of the community, is subject to the ills of the flesh and the hardships of Providence and, considering the economic standards in our community, the level generally of our standard of life, he is not, as an individual, able to make proper provision for the time when he meets with these natural difficulties.
The Minister himself, in putting through the Social Welfare Act, putsthat principle before the House and gets acceptance of that principle—that the community should assist the individual to meet those natural hazards. When we come to deal with the question as to why there should be a difference in the rate of payment of a man who is sick under the Social Welfare Act and the man who meets with an accident, it is not really social principles that are involved in assisting the man who is sick and unemployed. Quite rightly—and every party has to face this problem—there is also the question of taxing the community to provide certain benefits, and that has to be measured. But in the case of the injured worker, he has been engaged at a rate of wages by his employer. He is employed to earn that rate of wages because of his physical and mental health, and when he meets with an accident in his employment as a private individual, it is his earning capacity that is immediately affected and it is from the point of view of restoring to him some level of standard of life which accrued to him because of his earning capacity that we provide workmen's compensation. The query there is not as between the man who meets with an accident and the man who is sick but between the man and his claim on the man who employs him when he meets with the accident.
We are not introducing any new principles in the amendment. On the basis of the Act as it stands at present the first approach is that where a man meets with an accident and we have to determine his weekly pay, we do it on the basis of 75 per cent. We accept that. That is the relation established. We then desire to consider the question of cost and we consider, as I pointed out earlier with regard to the background around earlier approaches in the early years of the century to this question of compensation, that the whole social outlook of the community has changed and we step in and find that having decided in principle that a man is entitled to 75 per cent. of his average earnings we are now going to slice that across the top and say no matter what the 75 per cent. is going to provide you are not going to get more than a certain sum. We fix that,and we do not fix it in relation to the capacity of an insurance company, or an employer to pay, but purely on an arbitrary line. That line that we have drawn has passed away so far as the general social outlook in the country is concerned. Quite clearly if to-morrow morning the Minister felt that the general economic condition of the State, of national finances, were such as, say, to permit him to increase the payments from 24/- to £2—and in the case of a married man with a wife and two children from 50/- to £3 10s.—I have no doubt that the Minister would do so because he recognises himself that to ask a family to maintain themselves in sickness on 50/- a week or a single man to maintain himself on 24/- is not meeting our outlook on these matters. But, quite properly from his point of view—we may have differences as to what the present economic position can afford—but we recognise that is one of the limiting factors, and quite clearly, to-morrow morning if the Minister found he had greater liberty, I am sure he would be one of the first to adjust those figures.
When we come to the other sphere, the sphere of workman's compensation, we have not got that limiting factor where it is a question of determining a figure that is equitable in relation between a man's pre-accident earnings and what he should receive in his incapacity. Why should we apply principles in this limited field which are only properly applied in the field of social welfare? I said earlier that the Minister would be entitled to do that if we were dealing with a comprehensive State insurance scheme because the community would then be taking over the whole liability but we are not entitled to do it where we are proceeding on the old code and merely providing for a private individual that there should be reasonable provision in compensation in any particular case.
The Minister also made a point in regard to a kind of an exaggerated figure he mentioned of a man earning £20 a week and leaving a continued liability on a small employer to pay him £10, £12 or £14 a week. There is the other point that the whole basis of our compensation code even thoughCaptain Cowan says we are dealing, so far as the law is concerned, as between citizen and citizen, that the whole background is the acceptance of the fact that these liabilities are met by the employers through insurance. Every member of the House will have very little sympathy with the employer who deliberately neglects to insure himself against that kind of liability and who when an accident is met with by one of his workmen finds himself in the position of not being able to meet his statutory obligations under the Act.
That is not the type of case with which we have sympathy. We know that the small employer possibly through ignorance might make that mistake, but where it is done deliberately then we would agree that that man should be pressed to the full limit to meet his obligations. So when we talk about placing a burden on the small employer of having to pay £6, £8 or £10 a week we are not placing it on the small employer in that form. The only obligation we are placing on him is that he will have to take out a suitable policy of insurance and having done that if he has then got to compensate his workman it will be his insurance company that will bear the burden, and quite properly, whether it be to continue payment of weekly sums at the rate of 75 per cent. of the wages over a period or whether it is to make a composition and settle by a lump sum. That is a matter that the insurance company could provide for both in the drawing up of their policy and their calculation of agreements. The Minister would be quite logical to stress that we should have some regard to the effect upon the premium that might be imposed upon employers by adopting this amendment, but on the previous occasions when we increased the weekly payments I do not recall that we paid very much attention to the resulting effect upon the premiums. All we were concerned with, I think, was to ensure that having decided on the increased weekly payments they would be paid out by the insurance companies and that suitable arrangements would bemade as between insurance companies and employers.
Even if we deal with the question of possible increases, again I do not think we are placing any great burden on any employer, because if you take the average rates of premiums charged for various categories of workers in respect of the Minister's provision in the Bill that would provide the same sum so far as the lower paid worker is concerned the calculation of 75 per cent. proposed in the amendment will not require any greater payment of premiums than will be required by the Minister's proposals. I take it that the Minister is, in the main, concerned with the smaller employer, let us say, farmers, and in their cases, if the Minister's proposals are adopted it will cost the farmer exactly as much, I am sure, to secure insurance cover as it will in regard to the amendment. The only type of employers who might be more radically affected by the amendment than by the Minister's proposals are large employers and large companies and, again, if you check up on the cost of employers' liability and workmen's compensation insurance in large-scale employment you will find that that particular item is not among the heavier items that go into working costs. Even if it does impose, not a heavy burden but a somewhat increased burden, as compared with what they have to bear now, is there any reason why they should not have to meet it? We are not dealing with individual workers but with families dependent on those workers. Those of us who have to meet those men as I do know the position. I met one the other day, a man who stopped me and asked: "How long am I to try to keep my family on 50/- a week?"—and we know there are cases of men getting payments of 30/-, 37/6 and 50/- for a long period of years. I have known a man getting 30/- a week for nine years. During those nine years he had to rear his family from the point where the eldest was somewhere about six or seven years of age, and during that whole agony of nine years he was trying to exist on 30/- a week.
Then when the insurance company intheir graciousness finally decided to settle the case by payment of a lump sum that man got the lump sum, but by the time he had paid his debts he was completely without a penny in his pocket. That is the human side of it. As I say we are not dealing here with the employer. We are dealing with the commercial insurance companies, and the actual additional charge we might impose on the individual employer by the adoption of the amendment would be no greater in the case of a large number of small employers in the country, especially the farming community, than will arise in respect of the Minister's proposals. It is only a question, therefore, of whether we are prepared to measure our concern and regard for the injured workman as against the position of the large employer, the large company and individual. I think that the Minister should take the same view as we do, and I would press him to take another view on this amendment.
The more one listens to the debate on this amendment the more one gets convinced that there is a very urgent need for a comprehensive Act. I think that would be agreed. I think that the Minister should, if at all possible, try to meet the Labour Party on the question of placing the single man on a par with the married man, because, as Deputy Larkin pointed out, in most cases he is, I take it like myself, dealing with his experience in Dublin and elsewhere that these insurance companies who have, in the long run, to pay the compensation, when they are fixing their premium, fix it on the amount of the wages that are paid. They do not ask whether a man is married or single. They take it on the question of risk. I would like to see compensation related to a man's earnings, but that is a very big question, as the Minister said, and I agree that it is one that should be dealt with under a comprehensive Bill.
What I would like to see, if it were possible, to get over this is that the Minister would meet the Labour Party on the question of placing the single man on a par with the married man and that the Labour Party on theother hand might agree to leave over this question of the ceiling until a comprehensive Bill was brought before the House. I think that could be done, as was suggested by some Deputy, by setting up a commission or committee of some sort to go into this whole question of bringing in a comprehensive Bill. If that were possible the Minister might meet the Labour Party on this single man-married man question and they, in turn, should leave this question of the ceiling over until this commission or committee meets and brings in this comprehensive Bill. I would say that that should be done right away and that the Bill should be brought in as soon as possible because, as we were told, although Deputy Byrne was not aware of it apparently, this Bill will give benefits to a man who has a wife and two children. If he is being paid 50/- in July he will now get 76/- when this Bill is passed. I think we all want that to happen right away and any hold up, to my mind, would be a bad move. Therefore, I think we should try to give these benefits to the injured workmen. Like Deputy Byrne I know many a man who would be looking forward to getting these increases. I think this is a step in the right direction in giving those increases. I am altogether with the Labour Party in this question that compensation should be related to a man's earnings, but I feel that it is a very big problem and one that we could not do in a very short time. I would appeal to the Labour Party to give my suggestion some consideration because it is a thing that I feel keenly about and that I would like to see debated at some length in this House with a view to giving an injured workman much higher compensation than he is getting at the moment and to bring it into relation with his earnings. I think that that would be something worth while.
I think that the Minister might bear in mind, too, that there is no differentiation between a single man and a married man in the premium. There are men drawing 50/- a week who will draw it for goodness knows how long if we do not put them on a par with the married men. Thereare a number of employers paying 50/- and they do not mind how long it will continue because it is so little concern to them provided they do not have to pay a lump sum. I would appeal to the Minister to look on this in the spirit in which we are asking him to look on it.
Really, it is most discouraging. If I bring in a Bill here giving more to the man with dependents it is just brushed aside and we have nothing but the single man, the single man, the single man. If I brought in a Bill leaving aside dependents, and I said 65/-, I would have Deputy Hickey, Deputy Larkin and Deputy Norton asking me to tell them how a married man with a wife and two children could live on that amount. The married man and the wife and children would be dished up to us all the time. Can we not be reasonable instead of taking up all the time talking about the single man?
So far, this has been a most tranquil discussion.
The Deputy ought to think of another one when he says that. Every time he stands on his feet he says: "Do not get excited". I suggest he should think of something else to say. He should be a little more fertile in his imagination than that.
I am not the specialist in imagination that the Minister is. The Minister is indebted to his imagination on many occasions for his facts and his knowledge of things here. The Minister gets hot and bothered because we talk about the position of the single man under this legislation. In 1897—56 years ago—this legislation was first introduced in the British House of Commons and, since then, the basis has been that an injured workman got compensation irrespective of whether he was single or married.
We can depart from the British House of Commons now.
For 56 years we have had the one basis of compensation.
The British House of Commons.
Under our own legislation, that has run for 31 years. For 31 years under an Irish Parliament a single man and a married man got the same. That has been the basis of compensation if they met with an accident in the course of their employment. Then, suddenly, after 31 years, the Minister decides to make a change and puts the compensation on a basis which relates to whether a person is single or married. Then the Minister wonders why there should be any comment, even from his own Party. The change which the Minister is making is not one which operates fairly in the case of a single man. We were quite satisfied to leave this whole question on the basis that a workman got a percentage of his income without regard to whether he was married or single. I think, in all the circumstances, that is a good scheme from the point of view of regulating the relations between the workman and his employer. It is not a State scheme. What we are doing here is that we are coming in and putting our fingers on the scales in favour of the employer and against the workman. The Minister spoke as if these burdens were going to be borne by the Exchequer.
The Minister is fixing a ceiling in this Bill and saying to the most rapacious employer in this country: "No matter what your profits, dividends or the rates of pay which you give your workers may be, I will impose, in your interest, a ceiling in respect of workmen's compensation and I will not allow you, so far as the law is concerned, to pay more than that if you do not want to." Is it any wonder that even Deputy Gallagher should get annoyed with the Minister's proposals or that they should not be received with enthusiasm? The Minister is putting his thumb on the scales against the injured workman, and he knows it no matter what he may say.
As Deputy Larkin pointed out, a workman who was earning £5 a week and who has a wife and two children will get 75 per cent. of his salary under this Bill. That represents the generality of workers in the rural areas. Over and above that, there is the case of the employer in the largecities and towns who employs his workers at high rates of wages. Generally, they are employers in industries that are well capitalised and they are employers that are not found in the bankruptcy courts. They usually manage to pay good dividends and to enjoy a good standard of living. They are the people the Minister is fighting for when he fights this amendment because the workers employed by that type of employer are the only people who will not get 75 per cent. of their wages under this Bill if they are married and have a wife and two children. Take, for instance, the farmer who employs a man who has a wife and two children and pays him £5 a week. If that man is injured during the course of his employment he will get 75 per cent. of his salary under this Bill. Take, by way of contrast, a workman employed in Dublin by a wealthy firm. Suppose he is a craftsman. If he is earning more than £5 a week and if he is injured during the course of his employment he will be denied 75 per cent. of his wages.
Or a labourer.
That is the position of anybody getting over £5 a week. If he is a married man with a wife and two children he will be denied 75 per cent. of his salary. That is the class of employer who can well afford to pay the 75 per cent. and yet that is the class of employer whom the Minister is protecting in his opposition to this amendment. An ordinary farmer will pay the 75 per cent. but the Minister will not allow the big joint stock company owner in Dublin, Cork, Limerick or elsewhere to pay the 75 per cent. by removing the ceiling—the 50/- or 76/-, as the case may be—under the Bill.
I think we ought to think twice about departing from the pattern which we have followed in respect of worker's compensation in the past. I know that the British have done it but that is no reason why we should do it. Many continental countries did not follow the British pattern in this respect. In these countries, the scale and the basis of compensation is far better than ours or Britain's. I hope we will think again before we jump willy nilly to follow theBritish plan of national insurance so far as our people are concerned. A clear and obvious basis was here for us—75 per cent. of the man's earnings and take out the ceiling. There is no ceiling for the small farmer and there is no ceiling for the small employer in the country. The ceiling has gone for them so far as married men are concerned under this Bill. We are only keeping a ceiling now for a man who is in a position to employ better paid workers. We protect him while the lid is off for the small farmer in respect of the 75 per cent. compensation. Somebody on the Government Benches ought to tell us why that is so. If a farmer in County Kildare or in any other part of Ireland employs a man with a wife and two children, and if that man subsequently meets with an accident in the course of his employment, the farmer has to pay 75 per cent. of the man's earnings. On the other hand, the big industrialist in Dublin City or elsewhere is not compelled to pay the same proportion. Why should the Minister come in here and put his finger on the scales to prevent the big industrialists in Dublin, Limerick, Cork; Waterford or elsewhere—some of them foreigners—from paying the same percentage of wages under this Bill as, say, the Kildare farmer? We ought to be told why the Minister is interfering in this way against the possibility of an injured workman in the city getting the same proportion of his wages as his agricultural colleague. Why should we leave the rate of compensation at 50/- per week for a single man or a single woman? We thought that was good enough in 1948 when the wages were £4 a week. Why not increase that sum now, seeing that prices have gone up and that there have been three rounds of wage increases since the 50/- was fixed in 1948? The Minister is acting most unreasonably in this matter.
Deputy Norton is the bravest man in the world when he is sitting on the Opposition Benches. Why did he not do it in 1948? Why is this new principle brought in when he is sitting on the Opposition Benches?
Wages have gone up three times since then.
And Deputy Norton has got up three times to speak about something he would not do when he was Minister. He talks about me protecting the big joint stock companies and the rapacious employer on the very same principle that Deputy Norton maintained when he was Minister. Since he lost his job as Minister, the Deputy has become a real Labour man. He is out for real Labour principles and we cannot keep up with him at all, since he went back into opposition. Not satisfied with that, he attacks me for not doing the things he was afraid to do or would not do when he was a Minister. If members of the other Parties were anxious to do something for the injured man and not so anxious to make propaganda like Deputy Norton, about the rapacious employers, the joint stock company, my protection of them and so on, we might make more progress. I think Deputy Norton should have a little more regard for the injured man and not so much regard for his own reputation and for proposals which he thinks may go out to the country. That is all he is concerned about, so far as I can see.
Could we not take a reasonable view and agree that this is a very big principle? Deputy Norton has said that I am departing from a principle which has been there for 55 years by giving something to dependents. This is a bigger principle still which has been there for 55 years. Could we not put it aside for consideration by some sort of expert committee and get on with giving something at the moment to the injured man with a wife and children?
Will you do one thing?
If Deputy Norton wants to go out with his propaganda and deprive these people of anything, well and good. We can put it back until October.
We will meet you on that. Will you do something for thesingle man and woman above the 50/-?
When I come to that, I will deal with it. I cannot deal with it on this amendment.
What was good enough 56 years ago is good enough for Deputy Norton to-day, if I am to believe what he said a moment ago. I cannot understand the attitude of the Labour Party, especially Deputy Larkin, on this Bill, when we remember what Deputy Larkin said on 9th December, 1948. At column 1236 of the Dáil Debates of that date, he said:
"It is quite clear, and it can be argued, that there are many defects in the system and that this Bill could be utilised as an opportunity to deal with them, but there are so many defects to be dealt with that I feel it would be a physical impossibility to deal with them in the form of an amending Bill, no matter how voluminous that Bill might be."
Think of his attitude to-day towards this amending Bill. Later, at column 1240, he said:
"If the Minister is going to consider some of the amendments that it is suggested will be brought in on the Committee Stage, I feel that he is going to create a problem for himself. If he undertakes to consider favourably some of these amendments, I fail to see how it will be possible to ensure that the immediate purpose of the Bill, namely, to increase the benefit, is not defeated."
Further on, at column 1242, he said:
"These are all major questions that will need to be dealt with later. At the moment it is urgent that an injured workman should receive some improvement in the existing miserable amount. That is so urgent that I suggest to those Deputies who have already spoken urging an amplification of this measure that we should concentrate on the single objective of the Bill and at a later stage try and deal with the bigger problems that are involved in the question of compensation."
Further on, Deputy Larkin said:
"I hope the Minister will find it possible to get this Bill through the House rapidly and so make the appointed day as early as possible, thereby making the benefits under it available to those concerned at the earliest possible moment. I hope that he will soon be able to bring before the House a Bill formulated on a completely new approach to this problem."
When was that?
9th December, 1948.
There was a different Minister at that time.
He gave them a 33 per cent. increase, which you did not do from 1943 to 1948.
From then until June of 1951, Deputy Larkin was quite content to sit down and let the workers carry on on what was brought in for them, an increase of 12/6 which they got in 1948. He never put down a motion to increase workmen's compensation during all that time. Neither did his Minister for Social Welfare make any attempt during that period to bring in any increase. I would ask the Labour people to remember that the workers of the country are not as stupid as some of them would imagine. They can see through all these things; they can see through what happened to-day, when the Labour Party objected to an increase for the Comptroller and Auditor General, when they realise that, when there were two Labour Ministers in the Cabinet, it was decided to give Mr. Browne of the E.S.B. £1,000 a year increase.
That has nothing to do with the amendment.
What did you give the judges yesterday—the £4,000 a year men?
The Deputy must speak to the amendment.
You did not refer it to the Labour Court, anyhow.
Deputy McGrath, on the amendment.
I say to the Labour people that it is a good thing for a working man with a wife and two children to get this increase. A sum of 26/- per week may not be much to some of the Deputies on the Labour Benches, but from my knowledge of the workers, the dock workers in Cork and elsewhere, 26/- per week will be some little help to them. I agree that 50/- per week is not proper compensation, but I ask Deputy Larkin to approach this in the same spirit as that in which he approached it when there was a Labour Minister in charge. He was asking everybody to be satisfied at that time, but apparently, now that he is in opposition, it is not good enough at all that we should wait, though the Minister and the Tánaiste promised that a new Bill would be brought in.
You will not be here then.
From the experience we have had of this Government, the quick way they brought in the Social Welfare Bill which Deputy Norton could not bring in——
It was our Bill you brought in—you did not even change the commas.
We brought it in anyway and we carried it through the House.
We passed it for you.
Just as we brought in the Adoption Bill and the Health Bill.
If Deputies opposite want to discuss these matters, we are prepared to sit here to do so.
I take it that all this is in order, and that we will get an opportunity of replying?
The Deputy is getting away from the amendment.
It will be all right, so long as we are entitled to reply, and I take it we will be entitled to reply.
The Deputy need not take anything of the sort.
I suggest that Labour accept the bird in the hand and fight for the bird in the bush afterwards. I agree with them that 50/- per week is not sufficient for any city worker, but, at the same time, it is a step in the right direction and I suggest that the Labour members should not compel the House to postpone the Bill for months. Deputy Hickey knows that there are plenty married men in Cork with a couple of children to whom it would be a great advantage to get this sum of 26/-.
We say that the single man should have it also.
We would probably all agree with that—I would, anyway. He should get something, but the man with a family should get more than he is getting. I appeal to the Labour people to accept this.
Mr. O'Higgins
I rise to protest against the manner in which Deputy McGrath stated his opposition to this amendment. We find in this House in recent months the suggestion constantly being made from Government Benches that half a loaf is better than no bread and that if we were to press an amendment from this side of the House we would be threatened with no loaf at all. I think it is appalling for any Deputy to approach a matter of this kind in that manner. There is nothing to prevent the House sitting at length to consider this amendment. Why should it be suggested that if this amendment is pressed, as I am sure it will be, the rights of injured workmen to get compensation will be in danger? That is an argument which I conceive to be illogical and unreasonable.
There is a great deal to be said for the amendment proposed by Deputy Norton and if it is to be argued against it should be argued against on itsmerits and not in the way in which Deputy McGrath proposes, that any further discussion on this Bill will prevent it from becoming law. I think that Section 3 of the Bill, which is affected, falls far short of the compensation that injured workmen should get now. We should not forget that when social legislation such as the Social Welfare Act and other Acts of that kind is introduced here and becomes law it begins to get out of date and with rapidly rising costs, such as the people have experienced in recent years, we cannot be complacent about the limit of social reliefs given by our legislation. I should like to hear this amendment discussed from that point of view and not from the point of view of putting a pistol to the heads of Deputies and telling them if they do not withdraw the amendment injured workmen will get nothing.
I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary his opinion in regard to one point involving the single man. Deputy McGrath is in favour of married men having a greater allowance than the 50/-. A case came to my notice, through the trade union movement, of a tradesman who worked for a foreign company. The standstill Order was in operation at the time. The tradesman met with an accident and his allowance was only 50/- per week. He married after the accident although he was permanently incapacitated. Under this Bill he will not receive one penny of an increase.
Mr. O'Higgins
Not one penny.
Should not that man's case be considered? I can give the Minister the name of the person involved and the name of the foreign company by which he was employed. That man had not the £14 or £20 a week the Minister stated, owing to the standstill Order. He was a tradesman who married 12 months after being permanently incapacitated. He is still married and his wife is alive. Yet he is only in receipt of 50/- a week. There is no hope that he will receive any increase under this Bill. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to consider that and we can put an amendment down on the Report Stage.
It is a great pity that Deputy McGrath did not listen to the discussion we had on this matter earlier. I think he has gone completely haywire.
He always was.
I am not making any point that we should not accept the Bill. I want the present Bill through in a hurry. I made that point on Second Reading. A number of questions were raised. I hope the Minister will bring in a comprehensive Bill soon but we should concentrate on this Bill because of the urgent necessity to give increases to people in need.
Deputy McGrath referred to 1948. In 1948 we gave, with the support of the House, an increase of one-third on the payment then being made to every one, married and single, who had met with an accident and who was in receipt of this weekly compensation. Although the cost of living has gone up some 25 per cent. since that last increase, we are only going to give a 50 per cent. increase to a married man with a wife and children.
Fifty per cent.?
Deputy McGrath and myself will agree that a man with a wife and two children requires a 50 per cent. increase on the 50/-. He will also agree that it is necessary to give single men something on the 50/that we originally gave them in 1948 and in respect of which the cost of living has gone up at least 20 per cent. In addition to that, there are many single people who have got dependents and who have a greater responsibility than married people. We are not making any allowance for those.
So far as any efforts by the Labour Party to amend the present Bill areconcerned, if Deputy McGrath reads the amendments he will find that there is only a total of nine amendments put down. Of that, a number did not raise issues which would normally have to be considered under a comprehensive measure. They were confined to difficulties which have made themselves apparent in regard to the legal procedure under the present Bill, difficulties which everyone was anxious to amend. Some of these amendments were ruled out of order. We are left with five out of the original nine amendments. Of those five the only one on which there is any sharp division of opinion is the one we are discussing. All that amendment suggests is that the principle embodied in the Workmen's Compensation Acts over the last 50 years be accepted, namely, to relate the determination of compensation to a percentage of the wage without putting a ceiling on it.
We want to get the same results as Deputy McGrath. We want to get a reasonable amount of weekly compensation for those who need it. Would the Minister indicate even now that he would endeavour, not only in response to the appeal of the Labour Party but to that made by Deputies McGrath and Gallagher, to do something for the single man and woman? If that is done, perhaps, we can get away from this point. Instead, however, of doing that, the Minister, as happens to Deputy McGrath sometimes, got a little bit irritated and we do not seem to have made any progress. If Deputy McGrath were to speak to the Minister outside we might make a little progress.
Is Deputy McGrath in favour of that?
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 38 ; Níl, 58.
Tá
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Thomas N.J.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Crowe, Patrick.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lynch, John (North Kerry).
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Madden, David J.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, William.
- Deering, Mark.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Anthony C.
- Everett, James.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
- O'Leary, Johnny.
- O'Sullivan, Denis.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Spring, Dan.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tully, John.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Colley, Harry.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- de Valera, Eamon.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Fanning, John.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gallagher, Colm.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Little, Patrick J.
- McCann, John.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Moran, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Corish and Spring; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Killilea.
Amendment declared lost.