Some of the amendments may not be moved on the Report Stage. Perhaps the Minister would consider recommitting the Bill.
Agreed that the Bill be recommitted for the purposes of the amendments on the Order Paper.
Committee on Finance. - Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Bill, 1953—Recommittal.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 2, Section 2, line 24, before "to" to insert "not later than six weeks after the Act has become law".
During the course of the discussion on the Bill the Minister was asked to indicate roughly the period within which he would be able to fix theappointed day after the passing of the Bill. He did generally indicate that it would be a period of from six to eight weeks. It was felt that because of the urgency of giving effect to any increased payment under the Bill when it becomes law a limit should be placed on the period that might elapse between the passing of the Bill and the making of the appointed day. It was felt that a period of six weeks is a reasonable period in which to make the necessary arrangements and notify the various parties.
I should begin by explaining that when we were discussing last week whether the Dáil would meet on Tuesday or Wednesday of this week I knew there was some good reason why it should meet on Tuesday and not Wednesday but I forgot. The reason is that the Minister for Health is in the Seanad with the Health Bill to-day and I now have to deal with this Bill on the Report Stage. It is too late to remedy that now.
I thought that maybe he was in Galway.
The Minister for Health hopes to make the appointed day about October 1st and that will be about six weeks from the enactment of the Bill on the assumption that the Seanad will pass it in the next couple of weeks. It would, of course, be undesirable to amend the Bill as suggested here because it would mean that if anything turned up to prevent the appointed day being six weeks after the Act has become law, no appointed day could be fixed at all. In or around October 1st will be the appointed day.
Subject to the Minister's reference to October 1st being on the records of the House, I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 2, before Section 3, to insert a new section as follows:—
On and after the appointed day, any policy of insurance held by anemployer to indemnify him against his liability under the Act of 1934 as extended by the Act of 1948 shall be extended so 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 or the period in respect of which the policy was originally agreed to be effective has terminated.
This is merely the original amendment on Committee Stage with an addition. In the course of the discussion, the Minister made the point that, as the amendment stood, it would appear that a variation of existing policies to meet increased liabilities under the present Bill would be dependent not merely on the agreement of the insurance company but the agreement of the employer, that that might be unreasonably withheld and it would appear that there was no continuing liability on the insurance company. The argument seemed to be a little far-fetched but, in order to meet that point of view, we have resubmitted the original amendment with the addition that when the period in respect of which the policy was to be effective had terminated, then the liability of the insurance company to continue the increased charges would automatically terminate and a new policy would be called for. That seems to meet the point raised by the Minister in Committee.
I do not think this amendment should be inserted. In fact there would be grave doubts as to its constitutionality, and its inclusion in the Bill might have undesirable consequences. This is a matter which must very largely be left to be dealt with by the insurance companies themselves. I understand that the tariff companies have voluntarily agreed to carry this liability subject to certain conditions, an obvious condition being that the insured person will agree to make an adjustment of the premium on renewal in respect of the period involved. I do not think we should try to force this position in the waysuggested in the amendment. The Deputy will appreciate that this is of no interest as far as the worker is concerned. The workers' rights will be as set out in the Bill and will operate as from the appointed day. The only persons who would be interested in an amendment of this kind would be the employers and, as far as they are concerned, I think it is better to leave it to be settled voluntarily between the employers and the insurance companies.
I am afraid the Minister missed the point. It is the workers who are vitally interested because, while we are legislating here as between employer and workman, effectively we are legislating between the workman and the insurance company in so far as many employers are concerned. The subject of the early discussion was not in relation to the tariff companies. We know that the Minister had discussions with them and that there was agreement on their part, the same as in 1948, that they would meet the higher payments and that the necessary adjustment would be made in the premium. It transpired in the course of the discussion in Committee that no similar understanding was possible with the non-tariff companies, and many Deputies gave expression to their experience of dealing with these non-tariff companies. They were exceptionally stiff in holding an employer to the terms of his policy and took advantage of every loophole to evade any responsibility they might possibly have. It was to deal with these cases that an amendment of this kind was necessary.
The point is that if an employer has a policy with an insurance company, whether a tariff or a non-tariff company, and there is not a provision in the policy under which the insurance company will meet any additional liability placed on the employer by statute, then it could happen that a workman in the employment of that employer meets with an accident and the insurance company refuses to accept any responsibility and, because the employer is a small employer, theworkman is not able to secure compensation. We have had many cases in which we had to bankrupt employers, but we did not get any money out of them. The only result was that the unfortunate dependents were left high and dry. That is the kind of case we have in mind. No agreement with the tariff companies is binding on the non-tariff companies and they are the difficult ones to deal with. Members of the Minister's own Party expressed the same view as members of the Opposition. The Minister does not seem to have given any further thought to that.
First of all, so far as the worker is concerned, he has his rights in law against the employer. They are not affected by any arrangement the employer may make to insure against risk. The rights of the workman will become operative after the appointed day, and this amendment will not add to or subtract from them. So far as it is proposed to interfere in what is a contract between two private persons, the insurance company and the employer, it is questionable whether it would be constitutional to legislate in this way. Putting in such a provision in this Bill could easily lead subsequently to court proceedings as to whether the provision was repugnant to the Constitution or not. Apparently, so far as tariff companies are concerned, they have stated their intention voluntarily to make an arrangement with the people doing business with them in respect of the increased liability which will arise in consequence of this Bill. So far as the non-tariff companies are concerned, there is no reason to assume that they will not be equally reasonable. After all, they are not in business for their health, but for attracting customers. When previous changes were made in the Workmen's Compensation Act, they did follow the lead and adjusted themselves to the situation. It is far better to leave the matter to be settled on the basis of a voluntary business arrangement than to try to force the position in the way suggested in the amendment, particularly when it is doubtful whether we can succeed in doing it by law.
As to the Minister's constitutional point, I think it would be desirable as an inducement to tariff and non-tariff companies to honour an agreement that such a provision should be made. It is very little use to be told that the agreement is between your employer and yourself, and because the company with which the employer is insured refuses to pay, your only remedy is to sue the employer. As Deputy Larkin pointed out, we have had in the past to sue employers and the only result was that we bankrupted the employers and there was not any hope of any payment. I think this would be an inducement to all good companies to carry out what we wish to do here and I doubt if it would be very often contested in law. Surely the Minister should accept the amendment, unless he is definitely informed that it is contrary to the Constitution.
Of course nobody can decide that except the Supreme Court and it is likely that its constitutionality would be challenged there.
It is not very likely to be challenged if, as you say, the tariff companies are agreeing.
What a person agrees to is all right, but the question is whether the Legislature has constitutional power to force them.
Even the agreement does not tie them. They have promised the Minister something but they can change their mind next week. They have the same prerogative as a woman in that regard. If this is incorporated in the Bill, it will have the force of law until such time as it is challenged and proved not to have the force of law.
Leaving aside the question of the constitutionality of such a provision, it is true that this law is based upon the theory of giving the workers rights against employers. There is nothing in the law which requires an employer to insure against any risk of liability. There is no reason why we should take cognisance of anarrangement which an employer may make or should make to cover liabilities by insurance. We are giving the workers rights against the employers and these will become operative on the appointed day and I do not think the Legislature should be concerned further than that.
That is all very fine, except that we know very well that if we do not take cognisance of the commercial relationship between the employer and the insurance company we might as well scrap the whole workmen's compensation code. Why close our eyes to that fact and to the fact that we have two different groups of insurance companies? With one group there is no great difficulty in honouring a bond in the full sense of the term, and with the other group it is a continuous fight to get anything at all. When you go to a solicitor with a compensation case, the first question you want to find out is whether it is a tariff or a non-tariff company because then you will know what kind of a fight you will have. The main argument for taking workmen's compensation out of the present structure and making it a State insurance scheme is the experience of employers and workmen with insurance companies that they take advantage of every technicality. That is the main case made for a comprehensive review.
May I put this point? I think that remark indicates a casual approach to the whole problem when the Minister says that we need not concern ourselves with whether or not the employer has the risks covered with an insurance company. If the Minister had experience of dealing with workmen's compensation he would know that it was a very important thing for the workman that his employer should have his risks covered.
An argument could be made for having it compulsory as in the case of traffic accidents. But there are many snags.
We made the case for that on the Second Stage of this Bill but we realise you cannot meet a thinglike that on the present Bill with a limited scope such as this measure has. But we must concern ourselves with whether the employer covers the risk or not. Because in a great many cases the injured workman may get no compensation unless that risk is covered. First of all, this arises through the limited financial resources of the employer himself, and secondly because of the devices open to him if he wants to avoid paying a substantial sum in workmen's compensation or meeting a liability over a long period of years. It is much better that an employer is in a position in which he can lay off his risk with an insurance company because there is not then the same temptation to resort to other devices open to him This amendment, as now framed, was discussed on the Committee Stage but, to meet an objection by the Minister, the amendment has been altered and now really has a limited duration.
The longest period through which this Act will operate will be 12 months. As the Minister indicated that the tariff offices will accept the obligation implied in this amendment is there any really serious burden being placed on the non-tariff offices? The non-tariff offices indicated that they were going to meet the increase but it is by no means certain if they will be prepared to do it voluntarily if others are being forced to do it by law. These are business arrangements entered into by people in their own interests.
The Deputy wants to say that a company who must have made a contract of insurance is bound to carry a higher liability without increased premium and without any freedom to negotiate a new contract. I do not think the Dáil can consider that.
I do not believe it is asking too much. After all they have a monopoly in this field.
That is the whole point. They have not a monopoly. There are two groups.
Yes, but they have thisbusiness between them. The State is not entering into it and the business is between the tariff and the non-tariff offices. I do not think it is unreasonable to say to the non-tariff people that what the tariff offices are prepared to do, you will have to do, and I do not think we are imposing any greater burden on them. If the House will accept this amendment I think the non-tariff offices will do by legislation what they refused to do voluntarily. Again we are putting no greater burden on them than the tariff offices which have voluntarily agreed to take this burden.
If the Minister had experience of dealing with small employers, and if there is a fatal accident or a permanent injury, the employer knows that he is faced with liability and goes out of business, sells out, or transfers, and we have no redress.
I could not agree to this.
If this Act is to be of any use, do not the increases have to be paid? If the non-tariff offices, or any other offices are—as they apparently are doing—refusing to pay, will not this Act be of very little advantage in the case of a doubtful employer?
I am not prepared to put the workers versus the insurance companies. This is a case of the workers versus the employers. The claim is on the employers, and it is really a matter for his own decision whether the employer insures or not.
We appreciate that, but we have to deal with practical considerations and the practice is for an employer to take out a policy to cover workmen's compensation or employer's liability. He signs over to an insurance company the employer's right of decision on any claim that arises so that in fact the employer passes out of the picture except as a legal name under which the insurance company carries on proceedings. If there was no compensation code there would be no workmen's compensation insurance for these companies to makemoney out of. Here we are amending the legal code on which they base their business and make their profit, and is it not reasonable that we should put in some provision to protect the people who are the sole object of this legal code, the injured workmen? We are not being unfair to the insurance company. They have ample opportunity to safeguard their position and all we are trying to do is to make effective provision that the object of this legislation will get what this House intends he should get.
I just want to clear up one misunderstanding which Deputy Norton appears to suffer under. The tariff offices, while they have agreed to carry higher liability on the existing policy, have not agreed to do that without increased premium payments by the employer. I understand they propose, in the case of companies that have done business with them, to agree to pay the higher liability on the existing policies subject to an adjustment of premiums when the policies come up for renewal. There is no question of higher liability without increased premiums.
Why then does the Minister consider it unreasonable to say to the non-tariff offices that they should bear the higher liability?
Without an increase of premium?
No.
That is the amendment.
No. The amendment does not take notice of tariff or non-tariff offices.
But it says you carry a higher liability on the same premium.
I think what happened on the previous occasion was that they made an adjustment in a subsequent year. What we are asking to do now is that something like what was done on the previous occasion should be done in respect of the tariff and non-tariff offices. So far as this House is concerned we want to see that the people who are entitled to these benefits will get these benefits. Let there be whatever adjustment is necessary between the employer and the insurance company. We want to make sure that if a workman meets with an accident he is going to get the compensation terms provided in this Bill and not the terms contained in the policy of insurance between the employer and the insurance company.
It would be most inequitable. A company has entered voluntarily into a contract with some other person and the State comes in and says: "We are going to alter the contract compulsorily to your detriment without giving you an opportunity of doing anything about it." That would be most inequitable.
Amendment put.
The Committee divi ded: Tá, 19; Níl, 61.
Tá
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Thomas, N.J.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Everett, James.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hickey, James.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- O'Leary, Johnny.
- Spring, Dan.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- de Valera, Eamon.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Fanning, John.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gallagher, Colm.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough).
- McCann, John.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- 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.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Desmond and Kyne; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Killilea.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 2, Section 3, sub-section (1), to delete lines 26 to 31 inclusive and substitute the following:—
Where a workman is entitled to a weekly payment by way of compensation under the Acts of 1897 and 1900, the Act of 1906 or the Act of 1934 in respect of any week commencing on or after the appointed day, whether the accident giving rise to the compensation happened before, on, or after the appointed day—
(a) the workman shall, subject to paragraph (b) of this section, be entitled, in respect of that week, to a supplementary allowance equal to 100 per cent. of the weekly payment,
(b) the supplementary allowance shall not exceed such sum as together with the weekly payment amounts to 60/- per week,
(c) the supplementary allowance shall be for all purposes of the Acts of 1897 and 1900, or the Act of 1906 or the Act of 1934 (whichever is appropriate) to be deemed to be part of the weekly payment and shall accordingly be payable by the employer liable to make the weekly payment.
The purpose of this amendment is to try to deal with the points which received very wide support in the House during the debate on the earlier amendments relating to the raising of the maximum weekly payment to 75 per cent. of the pre-accident average rate of wages. In the course of that discussion it was not possible to deal with the practical limit of 50/- per week but the Minister was pressed very strongly by both sides of the House on the point that, if he was unable to accept the amendment proposing the raising of the limit to 75 per cent. of the pre-accident wages and the removal of the ceiling of 50/-, he should sympathetically consider the submission that the present ceiling of 50/- should be raised in relation to single men and women.
The Minister's present proposal is to maintain the maximum of 50/- and provide a supplemental payment in the form of an additional payment in the case of the wife of a married worker and in respect to the first two children, but no provision is made inrespect of the single workman or woman. It was recalled during the debate that in so far as the original ceiling of weekly payments as set down in the 1934 Act—that is 30/- per week— is concerned that merely to provide for the individual figure in the light of the change that has taken place in money values since 1934 would in fact justify a figure of 69/- per week instead of a figure of 50/- per week, the figure fixed in the 1948 Act; making allowance for the changes that have taken place in the past five years there would be ample justification for an increase of 25 per cent. on that figure of 50/-.
Leaving that particular argument to one side, it is correct that since 1934, and equally since 1948, there have been adjustments in wage rates to compensate for rising prices, and it would be most unfair to make an adjustment in the case of a workman who was married and who meets with an accident and leave untouched the position of the single workman or woman. In themselves, and as individuals, they have a strong, justifiable claim.
It has been expressed by the House generally that our concern should be primarily with the injured workman, to try to do justice as between him and his employer. From that point of view the workman who meets with an injury to-day and who is asked to maintain himself on a maximum of 50/- per week during his period of incapacity is quite clearly not being dealt with on a just basis, if we take into consideration the fact that the workman in the same position in 1948 would also have been asked to maintain himself on the same figure. The value of 50/- in 1948 so far as purchasing power was concerned was considerably greater than it is to-day. If we consider the principle, therefore, that the Minister has now introduced, namely of having regard to the possible dependents of a workman who is incapacitated through accident in so far as a wife and children are concerned, we must also bear in mind that there are a great many singleworkmen and women who have also got dependents. Those dependents may be parents or younger brothers and sisters and for that reason it is impossible to discriminate by cutting a sharp clear line between the married workman and the single workman since in this case we are not dealing with social welfare payments and we are not bound by the ordinary limitations that govern our approach in such matters, namely the question of the financial burden we are placing on the Exchequer.
We are dealing now with the position of a workman employed by an employer in the employer's private business and for the benefit of the employer. Assume that the workman meets with an accident. It may be that in certain cases the accident is contributed to by the workman's own negligence but in the majority of instances accidents occur under circumstances and in conditions over which the workman can exercise very little control and in which he has very little choice as to whether or not he will work. When a man is employed to work as a docker, as a builder's labourer or as a general labourer he cannot have a look round first to decide whether or not the prospective employment is completely safe. He has to take a chance and it is taking that chance that leads to the type of accident with which we are dealing here, namely, the accident which is accidental in its nature and in relation to which no charge of negligence or omission can be levied against the employer. Nevertheless, the accident occurs in the process of that employer seeking to make a profit out of the employment of that workman and it is therefore accepted, as is already established in the workmen's compensation code, that there is a moral and there must be a legal obligation placed on employers to make a proper contribution towards the maintenance of an injured workman during the period of his incapacity In so far as that is concerned, the claim of the single man is equally as strong against the employer as that of the married man. It so happens on this occasion that we, under the guidance of the Minister,have had to have regard, not to the relationship between the workman and the employer, but rather to the position of the workman as a citizen, with special responsibilities arising out of the married state and the fact that he may be a father. So far as we are concerned, in dealing with the relationship between the workman and the employer we say that the claim is equally as strong for the single man and woman as it is for the married man. From that point of view, many Deputies on all sides of the House joined in the debate on an earlier amendment in pressing the Minister to accept it. He could not see his way to accept an amendment to make the maximum weekly payment subject to a ceiling of 75 per cent. of pre-accident average earnings, instead of the present ceiling of 50/-. The Minister said that he would see on the Report Stage what could be done in respect of the 50/-.
This amendment has been set down to try and meet that point of view. The Minister had a certain understanding and sympathy with the point of view put forward on behalf of single men and women, while at the same time indicating his anxiety and desire to maintain a certain equitable relationship between the social welfare payments and payments under the workmen's compensation code, because of the future approach that may be made by this House to a comprehensive review of the whole compensation code by placing it on a State insurance basis. Until that happens, it is not fair that this House should apply to this arguments which will only be good when we come to deal with workmen's compensation on the basis of a State insurance scheme. We still have got workmen's compensation covered purely on the basis of the obligation placed by statute on an employer, and in practice met by him by taking out insurance cover in regard to his liability. It is on that basis that we should deal with the matter, so far as the present Bill is concerned, and to the extent that we have recognised that there is need for an adjustment of the rates in so far as a married man is concerned. The case is equally strongfor some proportionate increase in the present ceiling of 50/-, so far as single men and women are concerned.
Since last year this question of amending compensation payments has been continuously pressed on the Minister. He has acted on that in response to the approaches made to him by Deputies and on his own volition. It has been continuously pressed on him that there should be, not merely an increase for the married man but that the existing payments for single men and women should also be increased. Nobody has differed with the Minister in regard to the provision that has been made for the wife and children of a married man. In view of the previous history of this ceiling, which originally was 30/- and was subsequently raised to 37/6 and then to 50/-, it would be most unjust and inequitable, because at some future date we may possibly consider the establishment of workmen's compensation as a State system, arbitrarily to step in now and place a ceiling in respect of single men and women at 50/-.
It would be unjust to do that in view of the fact that it may be some considerable time before we have an opportunity of reviewing the whole code in a comprehensive manner, and of giving workmen, injured in their employment, benefits not merely on the rates of payment set down in a State insurance scheme but, what is of more importance, removing this whole question of workmen's compensation from the jungle of the courts and of the insurance companies. It would not be fair at this moment arbitrarily to place a ceiling of 50/- on single men. It would not be fair to fix that ceiling and ask them to continue to meet their living costs during the period of the accident at the figure which we thought was fair and equitable in 1948, namely 50/-. In the intervening period the cost of living has gone up by more than 25 per cent. Every other section of the community has had its claims met either by the State or by the private employer in regard to the increases that have taken place since 1948.
What I have to say regarding this amendment will alsoapply to amendment No. 4. This Bill was mainly designed to effect one change, namely, to provide that in nonfatal cases, in connection with the compensation previously payable, there would also be paid supplemental sums to a married man in respect of a wife and two children. We fully appreciate that, in any Bill of this kind, in the normal play of Party politics, whatever proposal was put forward would almost certainly provoke an amendment from some group or Deputy in the House to give still greater payments. A Government, however, is in this position that when it produces a Bill of this kind it has to make up its mind as to what it thinks a reasonable proposal, and then to stick to that proposal. These things cannot be settled by a system of auctioning here.
This Bill has a limited purpose. The proposal in the amendment is that the compensation payments should be increased very considerably both in respect of single men and in respect of married men. I do not think we could do that, certainly not at present, and not on this Bill. It is true, as Deputy Larkin says, that this is not a social service scheme. That is one of the facts, I think, which it is necessary to reiterate, that it is not a social service scheme. It is not a proposal to give payments out of State funds which have to be raised by the Government through the Dáil and through taxation. It is a proposal to put a charge on private employers. The Bill, as it stands, will increase the charge on these employers considerably, and the amendment, if passed, would increase the charge very considerably. It is precisely because it is other people's money we are going to spend that we should be careful as to how far we go. We should give full consideration to these matters and not settle them by a process of outbidding one another.
A case can be made, I think, for a revision of the workmen's compensation scheme. Personally, I would favour the incorporation of workmen's compensation in the national healthservices if it is possible to find safeguards against the dangers that are inevitably involved. I think that could be done, but if we seek now, through the operation of the workmen's compensation code, to establish the theory of compensation on the basis of this amendment, then we are going to make that increasingly difficult, because there are very few who could contemplate at the present time putting upon the taxpayers of the country the very heavily increased burden that would be involved if all national health payments were to be as liberal as is proposed in this amendment. I do not think that is a question we can settle by argument. Anybody can argue that an injured workman will need a particular sum of money to maintain himself during the period of his injury.
I do not think we can proceed on the basis that the entire obligation rests upon the employer to maintain that worker in the period of his incapacity. The workmen's compensation code is a system of law designed to require an employer to make payments to a workman when he is injured, even though the worker had received that injury through no fault of the employer. If there was any question of the employer being at fault, or of negligence on his part, the worker has rights under the common law to proceed for damages but, where there is no question of negligence or neglect or default of any sort on the part of the employer, he is still obliged under the law to pay a worker who is injured in his employment certain weekly sums while he is incapacitated. We can argue solely upon the basis of what the worker needs or we can argue on the basis of what it is reasonable to ask the employer to pay. I think we have reached a reasonable compromise in the proposals now before the House.
It is a good principle to have established that the payments to a worker will be adjusted in accordance with his family circumstances, that there will be additional payments if the worker has a wife and children, but it is impossible to contemplate the changes which are proposed in this amendment which would involve in some cases very substantial weekly payments which wouldin turn mean very heavily increased charges upon employers.
Is the Minister serious in suggesting that 10/- a week addition will make a serious increase in premiums and a serious heavy burden on the employer?
What the Deputy is suggesting is a further addition on top of the additions which the Bill will impose anyway.
The Minister has misread the amendment.
I have heard it suggested that the enactment of this Bill will mean an increase—a figure of 10 per cent. has been mentioned—in insurance premiums.
This amendment means an increase of only 10/- a week to a single man or woman who is now getting a maximum of 50/-. You would think it was £50 by the way the Minister is talking.
This Bill imposes increased charges on the employer, anyway, and the Deputy says we can add on further charges and each one is only a little, but the sum total of all these charges must be considered. This is not a matter we can settle by argument at all. We gave this matter careful consideration. We felt this was as far as it was reasonable to go in an interim Bill. There is something in the point which the Minister for Social Welfare made here, that if we have seriously in mind the idea of incorporating workmen's compensation in the national health service then we must not establish standards under the workmen's compensation code which could not be applied under the national health scheme, for financial reasons.
It might be always possible to have some higher payment where a worker is ill because of industrial accident, as against illness of the kind that befalls anybody, but there might even be objection to that because of the possibility of its leading to misrepresentation of the cause of illness and other attempts to defraud.
However, the net result of what I am saying is that, having carefully considered the Bill initially, having considered the amendment introduced, we have decided that it is not desirable to go further than we are proposing in this Bill. The proposals in this Bill are limited to what is set out in Section 3—to provide additional payments to an injured workman where there is a wife and children—and I do not think we can settle that by argument. Anybody could argue that a workman needs more. Anybody could argue that the charges on employers are already heavy enough. Somebody has to strike the balance. That is a matter for individual judgment. Our idea is that it is better to leave this as it is until we have considered the wider problem of having upon the State the obligations of making the payments involved in a service of this kind.
It is not often that we find the Tánaiste lost for argument but he is very poor to-day because we are finally told that the position is that the Government have made up their mind and nothing can be done to change their view on the Bill as it stands. I think we are entitled to take strong objection to the approach to the matter where the Tánaiste suggests that, no matter what figure is proposed, there will be a process of auction and bargaining, that merely because the Government say 50, we say 60 and if the Government say 60, we say 70. That is not the case. Might I point out that before the Bill saw the light of day at all, the Minister for Social Welfare met a deputation from the Irish Trade Union Congress and discussed the need for amending the existing code. On that occasion he did indicate that he was thinking along the lines of providing supplemental payments for a wife and children and he was asked what was the position with regard to a single man and woman for whom the present ceiling is 50/-. Considerable debate took place on that point and the deputation went away with an intimation from the Minister that he had not yet made up his mind and would consider the matter further.
No further opportunity was available to any section of the trade unionmovement or the Labour Party to do anything about the Bill until the printed copy was available. That is the first point at which we saw that the Minister was not giving any increase to a single man or woman. Are we merely to accept that because the Government say 50/- and no more? Are we just to sit down and do nothing about it rather than be accused by the Tánaiste of merely entering into a process of auctioning?
We have made what has been accepted by members of the Tánaiste's own Party as a good case for some increase on the 50/-. Possibly he was not in the House on the last day when members of the Government Party—I might say to some extent out of order, because the matter was not actually under discussion—made very forceful appeals, not in favour of the Labour Party's amendment which was then under discussion but in favour of some increase on the present figure of 50/-. So that, if there is bargaining and auctioning, it is going on behind the Tánaiste's back as well as in front of his face. Quite frankly, we were reinforced in our desire to do something by the support which was expressed from the Government Benches.
The Tánaiste takes the view that we have got to look at two main points of view. One is that if we are going to review workmen's compensation comprehensively and if we have in mind the desirability of placing it on the basis of a State insurance scheme, we have got to make decisions now in order to protect our position as and when we make that decision in regard to State insurance. I have pointed out already that in fact we are saying to the injured workman that at some time in the future we may give him protection, inasmuch as he may meet with an injury or accident in his employment, through State insurance and that will carry with it very substantial benefits not merely of a monetary kind but, more important still, of simplifying the whole code and making it easier for the workman to get his benefits. Part of the difficulty now is not merely the 50/- ceiling but of gettingmoney at all by the time you go through the jungle of the insurance companies and the courts and the legal profession. We are going to offer him that benefit by a simplified State insurance scheme. In return for that, it is possible that he may even have to accept the position that the approach to his sickness must be the same as the approach to ordinary sickness in the case of any other citizen. There is a very good argument for and against. We are not doing that to-day. We are still leaving him in the hands of the insurance company. We are still leaving him in the hands of private employers and we are still leaving him subject to all the difficulties of legal proceedings and, on top of that, we say: "You have got to be satisfied with 50/-, because some time in the future we are going to give you a State insurance scheme."
That is a completely fallacious argument. It is not a fair argument. While the Government are entitled to point out these difficulties, I do not think they are entitled to use that argument against the man who is at present injured or who is likely to meet with an accident before the State insurance scheme is introduced.
Secondly, the Minister made the point that we have to have regard to the cost of increasing any of the payments under the existing Act. We have always been told about the increased payments we are placing on employers, but let us examine the position. I quoted a case in which a staff of 40 persons are covered so far as the whole of the employer's liability in regard to workmen's compensation is concerned for less than £200 a year out of a total wages bill of £10,000 or £12,000. If we add an increase to that £200 of 10, 15 or 20 per cent., we will not be adding a large sum to that wage bill of £10,000 or £12,000. Even in the building industry and the heavy machinery industry, the incidence of insurance is not amongst the heavier items.
It is true that there is a responsibility on the employer, regardless of where we lay the blame. But it is his business. He has employed men and women for his own private concern andhis own private advancement. We all appreciate the fact that there should be more industries and that people should invest money for the purpose of giving employment. But they do it primarily for the return they get. When they are seeking a return out of the labour of other people, these people may meet with accidents which they cannot avoid. That is the general run, because nobody will put his hand against a circular saw or his foot under a heavy barrel. They are accidents that happen in the course of the employer's business. Just the same as he has to make provision against other developments which take place in his business, he has to make provision in regard to the human material engaged in his employment and he should accept responsibility for that.
Are we asking him to accept too much? When the Minister introduced the 1934 Act he set down 30/- a week as the ceiling. At that time a labourer in the City of Dublin was receiving 50/- or 55/- per week. The Minister thought 30/- was a fair figure and the House agreed. Roughly, that meant half his wages, or a little more than half. To-day, we propose to give that same labourer 50/-, but his wages now run between £6 and £7. Therefore we have cut down the percentage very markedly.
The increase suggested in the amendment is 10 per cent. to meet a rise in living costs of no less than 20 per cent.; I give the Minister the odd 5 per cent. That is not an unreasonable suggestion. In 1948, the increase given with the unanimous support of the House was equal almost to one-third. There was no objection to that at the time. It was given to the single man and the single woman as well as to the man with dependents.
Finally, the Minister points out that we should try to keep some reasonable relationship between the present weekly payment and the payments that would be possible under a State insurance scheme. But the Minister has already made the first departure from that. A man with a wife and two children who is sick draws benefit under the Social Welfare Act of 50/-and it is now proposed to give a manwith a wife and two children 76/- in a case of accident. Is he going to maintain the 76/-? Has he not already the difficulty he is arguing against in relation to the increase in the 50/-?
I feel that in this case we are concerned with two difficulties. One is the reluctance on the part of the Government to change their mind. They did not give anybody any opportunity of presenting any argument until after the publication of the Bill and they dispose of any argument by saying that no matter what the Government propose somebody else will bid higher. I ask the Minister to forget about the Labour Party and remember that other Deputies expressed the view that something should be done in respect of the 50/-.
The other point which the Minister seems to dwell on very considerably is the effect on employers. On that point, the Minister for Social Welfare, and the House on Committee Stage, were in agreement that, so far as the discussion of this problem of workmen's compensation is concerned, our primary regard and responsibility should be the injured workman in the first instance. When we have discharged that, it is time enough to consider the employer. I suggest that if the Minister considers the position more carefully he will satisfy himself that, even with the increase proposed in the amendment to 60/-, and with the provision for a wife and children, the additional burden placed on employers, whether large or small, in meeting the liability will be relatively small in comparison with their general costs and will not place any insuperable difficulty on them in carrying on their business.
I find it difficult to believe that the Minister, whom we always considered one of the progressive members of the Fianna Fáil Cabinet, personally believes what he has stated. The Labour Party are not making any claim that the compensation to an injured worker should be brought up. They have rather suggested to the Minister that the limit of 60/- is the lowest it is possible to give such a worker. The Labour Party indicated, in a private Bill some months ago, what they thought an insured workmanshould be paid. In the Workmen's Compensation Bill brought in by Deputy Norton and others they indicated that they believed a worker should get 90/-. As an interim measure, so that an injured workman will not suffer hardship pending the bringing forward of some comprehensive scheme, we are simply asking that the ceiling be raised to 60/-. The Minister and his Party have been rather loud in expressing the belief that workers' wages have been increased within the last few years to such an extent as to compensate them in good measure for the increased cost of living. No one will deny that there has been an increase in the cost of living or that there was a certain corresponding increase in wages. Surely the injured worker is entitled to get a percentage of that increase. We are asking that an adjustment should be made as an interim measure pending the introduction of a comprehensive scheme so that the worker can continue to survive until such time as the comprehensive scheme is brought in.
There is one point which I think should appeal to any reasonable person, and that is that when insurance companies will be making out the new rates for the renewal of insurance the basis of their rates for injured workmen will be that they are married men, because even single workmen may become married within the period covered by the insurance. If that is so, would it not be reasonable that a single worker on whose behalf an employer is paying as if he were a married man, should get an increase? In these circumstances, I think the single workman should have the right to an increased payment. I appeal to the Minister to look at it from that angle. Even if a single worker has no dependents, he will have to pay for his lodgings in some place where he will probably get short shrift unless he is able to pay his weekly bill. Surely it is not suggested that a ceiling of 50/-is sufficient. Under these circumstances, the Labour Party are just asking for an interim measure of justice pending a comprehensive scheme of insurance being introduced.
I only put this amendment in, in an effort to get some increase in the compensation level for single men and women but I am not such a fool as to pretend to believe that this amendment is going to do anything but grant the merest minimum increase so far as the injured single man or woman is concerned who meets with an accident in the course of his or her employment.
What is this Bill doing? It is going to give an increase, admittedly, to married men, or a man with a wife and one or two children, but it is not giving a single penny to an injured single man or woman. So far as they are concerned, they can meet with all the accidents they like from now onwards and so far as this Bill is concerned they will not get one penny increase under it. Is that a reasonable proposition?
In 1948 it was then felt that the level of workmen's compensation should be raised from 37/6 to 50/- a week. At that time, certain rates of wages were being paid to workmen married and single. Since then, there have been three rounds of wage increases, and although there have been three rounds of wage increases—paid for by the employers about whom the Minister was so concerned this evening when he spoke on behalf of those employers and without any authority so far as I know. He said that although the employers gave increases in wages from 33/- to 40/- a week, recognising the need for these increases since 1948, in freely negotiated agreements, yet the Minister says: "By law, I will not permit the employer to be required to pay more than 50/-," although we now have a situation where there have been three rounds of wage increases since 1948 and an increase of 25 per cent. in the cost of living since that year, this Bill designed to improve workmen's compensation payments does not provide for one penny increase for the single man or woman.
We are, therefore, by the absence of provision on these lines saying to the injured workman or woman if they are single: "You are not going to get onepenny increase on the 1948 level. You may say the cost of living has gone up by 25 per cent. So it has," the Government says, "but that is none of your business. You are still going to be conditioned to a ceiling of 50/-fixed in 1948."
Let us look at it from another angle and see whether we are imposing any cost on the employer at all. Deputy Larkin has quoted the case of an employer who employed 40 men, with a wage bill of £12,000 a year, and the cost of covering those 40 employees for not only the workmen's compensation cover but also employer's liability which is not affected by this Bill amounted to £200 per annum. If, therefore, every single one of these employees were to have his workmen's compensation payment increased by 20 per cent., the increase clearly, so far as the premiums are concerned in the case of that particular employer, would be 20 per cent. In other words, the employer would pay an additional £40 per year, roughly 15/- covering 40 work-people, entitled to an annual wage bill of £12,000. Does the Minister seriously pretend that that is a burden on the employer, especially in view of the taxation proposals that have gone through this House in the past two years? It is not this burden that is going to hurt the employer but those that have been clamped on him already. This imposes, and would impose no serious burden. So far as the employer is concerned not one penny additional burden will be borne by him if all his employees are single men and women. So far as he is concerned, the old rate of compensation will run and he can get all the single lads he wants and all the single girls he wants and there is no additional burden under this Bill.
I am just looking to see how far we have dragged our anchor in our approach to the question of workmen's compensation since 1939. Under the 1934 Act, which operated up to 1939— and in fact still operates—in 1939 we provided for the injured workman a ceiling compensation of 30/- a week. Clearly, if we are going to leave injured workmen in their 1939 position in 1953, we ought to give him to-daywhatever the equivalent of 30/- then would be. In 1939, what would 30/-buy? In reply to a question addressed to the Taoiseach in this House recently we were told that the purchasing power of £1 is 8/9 as compared with 1939, so that an injured workman getting 50/- a week under this Bill is going to get in terms of 1939 purchasing power, 21/10 per week, and yet we talk about putting burdens on the employers. We are giving the injured workman in 1953 the 1939 equivalent of 21/10. In that year, he was able to get 30/- a week. Now, we give him 21/10 in compensation for the 30/-which he was able to get in 1939 under the 1934 Act. We do not need to be completely insensible to all human feelings in order to appreciate the strength of the case contained in these figures. The Minister told us he was concerned about not wanting to do something in this Bill which would interfere with the possibility of merging workmen's compensation in the social welfare code. I know where that argument came from. I met it in the Department of Social Welfare in 1948 when some people came and said to me: "Please, Minister, do not touch the workmen's compensation. Leave the Act as it is." The intention was then to blend workmen's compensation in with social welfare payments and to give the injured workman whatever rates of benefit were ultimately applied so far as social welfare was concerned. I was never impressed with the argument and did not listen to it. Instead, I introduced the 1948 Workmen's Compensation Bill and increased compensation under that Bill within one year by 33? per cent.
That is where the 50/- in the 1948 Bill came from and it is in this Bill, and although five years have elapsed, the present Government are not increasing it by one penny. Any merging of workmen's compensation with social welfare payments is going to be to the disadvantage of the injured workman. It was because I knew that that I did not agree with it. Now, five years afterwards, following a period during which there have been three rounds of wage increases, the Government propose to leave the 50/- compensationrate as it is. I put it to Fianna Fáil Deputies, is it fair to give an injured workman in 1953 only the same rate of compensation as he got in 1948 when you have clear evidence of substantial rises in wages outside and when we have passed Bills to increase pensions for this, that and the other class?
On this very day the House has agreed to increase the remuneration of one State official by a sum of £540 per annum and we have on the stocks here a Bill to give increases of £450 per annum to a number of court officials. Yet when it comes to the case of the injured workman, living under conditions which are no credit to the State, we cannot afford one penny more for him. If injured workmen have not any respect for this House, who can blame them if that is the way in which they are going to be treated? We all recognise the necessity for increasing wages to meet the increased cost of living during the past five years. Where then is the justification for keeping the workmen's compensation rate at the same figures as 1948? Why, when this Bill is going through, should we not avail of the opportunity to increase the maximum compensation by the very modest sum, in my view the indefensibly modest sum of 10/-, for the single man or woman who meets with an accident in the course of his or her employment? Nothing in this amendment would impose a burden on the employer. The Minister completely failed to establish that it would. Official information as to the extent of the increased premiums completely disproves what the Minister says. Certainly the Bill should not be allowed to go through the House without someone raising their voices in protest against an enactment of this kind.
There are apparently two editions of Deputy Norton: one, the reasonable Deputy that we generally know him to be and, the second, the unreasonable Deputy to whom we have just listened, who rants and rants on a simple proposition, repeating it again and again, until even his own friends are tired listening to him.Surely Deputy Norton will admit that this Bill was introduced primarily to increase compensation for injured workmen? We are faced with two alternatives—either to give a flat increase, as Deputy Norton did, to married and single men, or to give a substantial increase to married men and their dependents. The Government apparently decided that it would be better to give a higher rate of increase to married men with dependents and leave the unmarried men in the position to which Deputy Norton raised them in 1948. I think anyone listening to Deputy Norton would take it that no benefit whatever was being conferred upon working men under this Bill. In actual fact, an increase of 50 per cent. in workmen's compensation is being given to married men with families. That is a very substantial increase.
Deputy Norton boasts of having given an increase of one-third in compensation to injured workmen during his period of office. Here we have a 50 per cent. increase being given to the most needy type of workers and the people with the greatest family responsibility, and I think that that should be acknowledged as a substantial step forward. We all appreciate the desirability of the State doing whatever it can for the lower paid sections of the community but, in this type of legislation, you are dealing with a problem that is somewhat different from ordinary social welfare legislation. It is not the State that is providing the money and any increase in the allowances will not impose an increased burden on the Exchequer. Therefore it is possible for private Deputies or Opposition Deputies at any stage of the Bill to propose an increase in the rate of compensation. However, as the Minister pointed out, it is necessary for the Government at the outset to make up their minds as to the amount of liability they are going to impose upon people who will bear the cost of this Bill and how much additional provision they are going to make for those who benefit.
In this Bill an increase of 50 per cent. in compensation is being given to married workers with dependents.The Government could have taken the other line and given perhaps an increase of 10 or 20 per cent. all round. Deputy Norton could not then raise the argument that he has been hammering at for the last half hour. I suppose he would then probably adopt a different line.
I think it is rather unfair in a debate of this kind completely to ignore the benefits that are being given and concentrate upon the fact that a certain section will not derive benefit. Everybody is aware, nobody better than Deputies who have been speaking, that workmen's compensation legislation at the present time is altogether unsatisfactory and that the sooner a social welfare scheme, in which the workmen's compensation code will be merged, the better. We are now dealing with a purely temporary, interim measure and I think it would be a good thing if Deputies on all sides were to approach this measure in a reasonable way.
On another amendment it was pointed out that a very large section of employers are people who cannot afford to meet their liability to compensate workers in the ordinary way unless they are covered by insurance. Deputy Larkin and Deputy Norton pointed out that large numbers of employers had become bankrupts when claims were made against them. That is an indication that all employers are not very wealthy people. Many of them are very small employers, employing only one or two men and it is not altogether true to say, as Deputy Norton stated, that all employers employ men solely for profit. If you take the case of two farmers, each owning 300 or 400 acres of land, one may do all his own work and employ no one, while the other, in the public interest, may be a substantial employer. Yet the most of our legislation tends to impose all the additional burdens on the man who is public spirited enough to give employment to his neighbours and it lets off completely the man who does not discharge his social obligations and who provides no employment whatever.
I think members of the Labour Party should at least accept the factthat a very substantial benefit is being conferred upon workers under this Bill and that, in fact, an increase of 50 per cent. is being provided in the benefits for married workers. I think they should appreciate that that will impose a very considerable burden on employers, particularly on those employers of limited means inasmuch as their premiums must inevitably be increased. I do not think anybody will suggest that the insurance companies are going to pay these increased benefits out of their own resources. Insurance companies are not very anxious for the workman's compensation type of business. As a matter of fact, in many cases they refuse to take it unless they are offered additional businesses in other lines. Apparently there is not a very big profit in it, and whatever additional costs are imposed under this Bill will be passed on to the extent of 100 per cent. to the employers, and this Bill will impose a fairly substantial increase in costs on those who are endeavouring to relieve the unemployment problem by providing the maximum employment in their various businesses. At the same time a very substantial benefit will be provided for a large number of workers, workers of the most needy and the most deserving type. I think that should be appreciated.
Deputy Cogan says we should appreciate what is being done for the workers. I will not follow the line of argument that we are here simply because the workers are involved. Surely we have a better conception of our responsibility. Surely the worker should have a better status in industry. Is it not appalling to think that if a man earning £7, £8 or £9 per week is injured in the course of his employment the most we can afford to give him is 50/- per week? In 1934 the Minister introduced a Bill to give 30/- per week, and at that time wages were round about 50/- per week. As a matter of fact a man would not get 30/- then unless he had £2, or over, per week in wages.
Deputy Cogan speaks lightly about workers' wages and I would like him to ponder on these matters: the purchasingpower of the £ to-day has depreciated considerably. A payment of 50/- per week represents only 50 per cent. of £5. Deputy Cogan says the Labour Party should be more reasonable and should appreciate what is being done. If a worker earning £6, £7 or £8 per week receives a broken leg or arm, or any other serious injury, is it fair that we should only give him 50/- per week to maintain himself? I am amazed at the Minister's approach in this matter. I shall not waste the time of the House reading two letters that I received during the week from two injured workmen. One man, who is single, has been drawing workmen's compensation for 13 years. Another man has been drawing workmen's compensation since 1926. I know men who were injured in State employment who have been drawing compensation for the last six or eight years. One man has a stiff hand and cannot straighten it. The other has an injured back. Then we have Deputy Cogan telling us that we should be more reasonable and more appreciative of what is being done here.
We are dealing here with workmen's injuries. That is what we are trying to do in this present Bill. That is what we will continue doing until we have some comprehensive compensation measure. I am disappointed because I expected something better from the Minister. I have considerable knowledge of workmen. I have dealt with a considerable number of compensation claims. I have discussed this matter with a man who employs labour on the docks in the coal trade. I suppose that offers the greatest risk of any trade. At the moment I am satisfied he is not paying any more than £7 10s. on every £1,000 wages paid. On a wages bill of £10,000 that represents about £75. On a wages bill of £20,000 it represents £150. What tax is that on industry? Why should the injured workman not get at least more than half his wages during incapacitation?
I know workmen are exploited from the point of view of workmen's compensation. I know, too, that it is not unusual to find shareholders and directorsgetting bonuses of £20,000 and £60,000. From what? From the sweat and labour of the workers in industry. Despite that we are told that a man who has been drawing 50/- since 1948, notwithstanding the increase in the cost of living and the depreciation of the purchasing power of money, will get no increase under this Bill.
I appeal to the Minister not to press too heavily on the working classes. Times are changing. Men suffering under economic pressure are beginning to think for themselves. We are not here to protect people who are well protected and well provided for at the moment.
The Minister stated that we must relate this to what is paid under social welfare to people who are ill. He says we cannot give any more because of financial reasons. Is that the kind of statement one would expect from a responsible member of Government, remembering how life is changing all round us? Is it any wonder that there is social unrest? Reading the Minister's statements in the past and his statements to-day, I am satisfied he has his eyes turned towards what is happening all over the world. Surely we can no longer keep the people in subjection and under economic pressure all the time. I suggest the Minister should reconsider this matter and make some effort to meet our demands. Dock work and the coal trade represent two of the most dangerous occupations any man can take up and the amount of premium on a wages bill of £10,000 or £15,000 to meet the risks involved would be quite small. It is that we should consider rather than financial stringency or financial risks. We are dealing with the human aspect of the problem. It is shocking that we should have to bargain here for humanity and for the man who is producing the goods and giving the services. If he is injured in his job we are told industry cannot afford to pay any more than 50/- per week. I can tell Deputy Cogan that the cheapest commodity in this country to-day is human life. I know of an instance in which two workmen were killed in Cork in the past few years and all the dependents got was £600. That is thevalue that is placed on human life. But we can pay £250,000 for a horse.
We can never deal properly with a measure of this kind unless we have, first of all, a proper conception of the value of human life. I would be surprised if back benchers of the Fianna Fáil Party did not ask the Minister to meet us in our demand in making this figure 60/-.
I think that, if we were dealing with a comprehensive measure, the principle which the Labour Party are seeking to establish is one that would have much force with us. But in this Bill we are dealing with contracts that have already been made and with money that is not provided by this House but by individuals outside. We have no direct control over it. It is not this House that will provide any of the increase. The present ceiling of 50/- was arrived at both by this Government and by the Coalition Government when previous adjustments were made in these schemes. That sum was not for a single man or a married man but was the average figure that was to apply in the circumstances of the time, whether a man was single or married. In the present Bill it is proposed to provide something more substantial for a married man with a wife and two children. That will apply even in cases where there are existing contracts. This Bill is to deal with an interim period. I agree whole-heartedly that if a man is injured permanently nothing will ever compensate him or his family for what he has lost.
Much the same can be said for the man who is partially incapacitated. I agree with what Deputy Larkin and Deputy Hickey have said about him— when the pronouncement is made that he is capable of light work. We all know that, because of their condition, the big concerns are not prepared to take back such men. Such a man would be regarded perhaps as an added risk, and they will discard the partially incapacitated man just as they will the inefficient machine. They will give no more consideration to the one than to the other. That has been my experience. We, here, have a certainjob to do and we should do it quickly. We should provide certain benefits for those most in need. I think that the Labour Party ought to accept that. When the time comes, everyone will join together to make the improvements which are so urgently desired in the case of this scheme.
I wonder if this Bill has been correctly styled. It is called the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Bill, 1953. Heretofore, when we were legislating for workmen we did so irrespective of their domestic circumstances. This Bill, for the first time, puts single men into a class on their own. When making provision for those who suffer injury in the course of their work that should not be done. Single men have their constitutional rights like all other citizens, and should not be deprived of the benefits of any legislation passed by this House. That has not been the practice up to the present. Under this Bill, however, single men are being singled out and are, so to speak, being put on the shelf.
Deputy MacCarthy has said that it is outside people who have to provide the money to meet these awards and payments. I suggest that it is the duty of Deputies to make the law such that it will apply fairly and justly to all sections. The last Bill we had was passed, not by the Coalition Government or by a Labour Government but by Dáil Éireann. That was in 1950, bringing the compensation payable up to 50/-. That figure had regard to the cost of living at that time.
It provided that men who had given service to the nation should get reasonable compensation when they met with an accident. One may ask, was the sum which was fixed in 1948 commensurate to do the same job for injured workmen? We now realise that some further increase is necessary in view of the change in money values in order to provide for an injured workman.
In view of the differentiation which, for the first time, is being made in the case of this Bill, I think the title of it should be the "Married Workmen's Compensation Bill". I appreciate what is being done for the marriedman, his wife and two children, but I cannot understand why there should be this differentiation against the single man. It is only going to cause acrimony and disaffection. It will be an encouragement to employers to give work to single people to the detriment of married men. I think that this is a step in the wrong direction. No one can compel a man to get married. Therefore, this Bill will be an encouragement to employers to give preference to single men. That is going to be bad industrially, socially and domestically.
We are told that this is only a temporary measure. I think that it was not worth while introducing it. I think it is a mean sort of measure. If we are going to have a comprehensive measure sometime, then why have this differentiation between single and married men? The Labour Party amendment asks to have the ceiling lifted from 50/- to 60/-. I think that is a reasonable proposal having regard to the present cost of living and the price of commodities at this time. I should like to emphasise that a single workman who is injured is not necessarily single in the sense that he may have dependents to support. These may include his mother and his sisters. I think we will be doing a grave injustice if we persist in this differentiation. I will make a further appeal to the Minister to reconsider the matter. Surely he cannot claim that what we are asking is unreasonable or unjust. The sum that we are asking for the injured workman is the bare minimum to enable him to exist.
As I am deputising for the Minister for Social Welfare, I must protect him against misrepresentation. While I do not think Deputy Larkin intended to misrepresent him, I think he did leave the House under the impression that, when the Minister met the deputation from the Trade Union Congress, they departed believing that the Minister was likely to bring in a proposal under the Bill such as the Deputy mentioned. A report made at the time indicates that the Minister explained to the deputation that he hoped to consider the introduction ofa State scheme of social insurance to replace the existing workmen's compensation system. He said, however, that he recognised that the examination and introduction of a State scheme would take considerable time and, therefore, was proposing to come to the Dáil with an interim Bill to make certain changes in the workmen's compensation code: (1) the introduction of supplemental allowances for married men with dependents; (2) to increase the amount of compensation payable in fatal cases, and (3) to raise the income limit so as to bring the compensation into line with the Social Welfare Act. While it is true that during the course of the discussions between the Minister and the deputation this question of single men was raised, the Minister at the end of the discussion said that he preferred to leave the maximum weekly payment unchanged in the case of single men, and particularly as, of course, the question of a State scheme of insurance was under consideration. While, like myself, he indicated that he recognised that there was a case to be made for a higher rate of payment to a worker who was unable to work because he was injured in an accident than to a worker who was unable to work because he was ill through natural causes, nevertheless, he did not want too great a disparity between the rates of payment in both cases, that the gap between the two rates was considerable at the present time and he argued that it would complicate the whole position further if that gap was widened rather than narrowed.
It is true, as Deputy Keyes said, that this introduces a new principle in the workmen's compensation code. The Bill could have provided for an increase in the maximum rate of compensation irrespective of the domestic circumstances of the injured worker. The Minister, however, considered that in an interim Bill it was better to provide for a 50 per cent. increase in the maximum benefit payable to a married man with dependents than a 20 per cent. increase in the maximum compensation payable under the old Act. I think he was right. If one is trying to make an interim arrangementdesigned to relieve hardship it is far better to provide for a greater increase amongst those with the greatest family responsibilities than merely to provide for a flat rate adjustment which would take no account of individual circumstances.
Deputy Norton misrepresented to some extent what I said when I referred to burdens on employers. I was not shedding any tears about employers. I was emphasising that under this Bill it is on employers we are placing burdens, not on the Exchequer, that the onus of adjusting prices or working methods so as to meet any higher charges that may become necessary will rest upon a number of individual employers in the country, large and small. We are not doing something that we have to pay for ourselves. That is a factor which should colour our approach to this problem.
May I say, arising out of Deputy Norton's remarks, that we are not substituting one burden for another? Whatever burden this will place upon them is in addition to all the other burdens, including the tax burdens to which he referred.
So far as premium rates are concerned, an increase is certainly going to occur. I do not think it is true to say that insurance companies will proceed to determine their charges on the assumption that all workers are married people with dependent wives and two children. The increased charge is likely to be determined statistically and justified by experience. In practice I think there is very little profit for any insurance company in workmen's compensation business, as Deputy Cogan rightly pointed out. Most companies will only give workmen's compensation insurance cover on condition that other business is placed with the same firm and in our time, as Deputies will remember, at least one company engaged in this business failed, with consequent very widespread hardship.
It is not because they give too much to the worker. He only gets 9/- out of every £1 paid. The employer does not get it. Who gets it?
I have seen an advertisementoffering a 20 per cent. reduction for this kind of business.
It is quite true that the Bill does provide a new principle—this is the difference between us—a differential payment for injured workmen with wives and children and as it is an interim Bill I think that is a good system and one which I would certainly urge would be preserved in any system of State insurance that may subsequently be introduced.
I think we should make it clear that there is no lack of appreciation on the part of the Labour Party in regard to what the Minister refers to as a new principle and the supplemental allowance for a wife and children. But do not take too much credit for it. Even with that allowance, bringing the total payment to 76/-, we are still only providing much the same percentage of wages as is provided in most other countries in workmen's compensation, and we are only giving this to the married men. Nobody is objecting at all. That is a very fine advance. We welcome it, but does it mean that on every occasion when some improvement is made, whether it be big or small, we are to shut our eyes and not take a critical view of the matter and forget what is not being done? It is the same approach as Deputy Cogan has to the question of employment—it is like the old squireen—that the man should go down on his knees and be thankful for being given a job. I thought we had got rid of that kind of outlook in this country.
Apparently not.
In the same way, if the man is given a job and meets with an accident, is he to go down on his knees because he gets compensation? How did he meet with the accident? He did not meet with it when he was out enjoying himself. He did not meet with it doing his own business. He met with it doing the business of the employer. I am surprised that in this stage of the debate we are taking an entirely different approach from the approach on Committee Stage wherethere was general acceptance that the man meeting with an injury during the course of his work was entitled to get the first consideration, secondly, the employer, and thirdly, the insurance company. Now we seem to be reversing the procedure altogether.
If we are going to discuss this as a practical proposition, we should look at the figures. We have been repeatedly told here that the main factor of our economy is agriculture. The other day I asked for some sample quotations for workmen's compensation insurance. One figure I got—it varied from company to company—was 56/-per cent. for farm labourers. Take the case of a farmer who is employing one farm labourer, and add on to the present compensation payments the 12/-for a wife proposed by the Minister, the 14/- proposed by the Minister for two children, and the 10/- proposed by the Labour Party.
We are making a total addition of about 75 per cent. on the present charge. If the premium is increased by the same percentage, it means that the farmer employing one labourer will have to pay another 35/- a year to cover his insurance.
I should like to put it in another way. If he had a labourer working with him to-morrow who met with an accident, purely as a personal matter between himself and the man working for him would he be satisfied to give him only 50/-? I doubt it very much. The peculiar thing is that in the case of most small employers where there are only one or two men employed and one of them meets with an accident he generally gets far more than the legal compensation. Very often these men get full wages, so that the small employer recognises his moral and his legal obligation. It is only in the case of the very large employer that we get a rigid adherence to the sum provided for and the large employer should be well able to meet this small additional burden.
I frankly cannot see the force of the Minister's argument, except on one point, that he finds there would be difficulties in regard to the introductionof a State insurance scheme. When Deputy MacCarthy was pleading with us to accept the immediate benefit and wait for the comprehensive review to come later he took it for granted that when that insurance scheme was introduced we would still embody in our scheme that the single man and woman would get 50/- and that we would pay 12/- for a wife and 14/- for two children.
I wonder would the Government like to tie themselves to that? If they bring in a State insurance scheme, will they provide that an injured worker will get no less than 50/- if single? We know they will not. Why should we be misled by the suggestion of Deputy MacCarthy, that if we wait for three or six months we will get a system of State insurance and we will not merely have the benefit of that system, but will still have the same rates as the Minister is proposing to-day, namely, a continuance of 50/- for single men or women and additional payments for a wife or children?
Quite clearly what we are doing now in view of the possibility of a State scheme being introduced is, we are taking the first step by providing for payment in the case of a wife and the first or second child exactly on the same basis as the present Social Welfare Act, and all that has to be done subsequently is to adjust the 50/- to the rate for the single man or woman that is now embodied in the Social Welfare Act. That is becoming quite clear in the course of the discussion. That is one of the reasons why we should increase the 50/- so that we will have a little stronger argument.
I feel that there is not very much point in carrying the argument further. It is quite clear that the Government have made up their minds, but I feel that we should pin-point the position. I want to touch on the question of the Minister's recollection of the interview with the Trade Union Congress deputation. I do not want to misrepresent the Minister. I am not suggesting that at any point during the discussion he said he would bring in a Bill to increase the payment for single men or women. But I am quite clear that in the closing stages of thediscussion, when I again raised the question of the 50/- and put a number of points to him, he concluded his remarks by saying that his mind was not entirely made up on the matter and that he would give further thought to the arguments put forward. My point is that from that date when the viewpoint of the trade union movement was put to the Minister up to the time the Bill was published we had no knowledge as to how the Minister would deal with the problem. We were aware that there was a strong feeling in regard to the payment for a wife and children, but whether he had finally and conclusively made up his mind against any increase in the 50/- we did not know until the Bill came out.
When the Bill came out we put forward an amendment for a 75 per cent. ceiling. As that was turned down, we are now putting forward this amendment for a small increase in the present rate of 50/-. That figure of 60/- was put in this amendment very much against the viewpoint of many members of the Labour Party who realised that the figure was far too low. The fact is that we would have difficulty in standing over it in front of any injured workman. But, because of discussion in this House and the view expressed by members of the Government Party that there should be the same ceiling, we thought that in the last stages of the Bill, as there was a feeling prevalent on all sides of the House that there should be something done in regard to the 50/-, we should not put in what might be regarded as an exaggerated figure by the Government, but keep it to a nominal increase so that there would be some agreement.
An increase of 10 per cent. in face of a rising cost of living of no less than 20 per cent., is not trying to favour anybody. We think the Government are taking a bad line in this matter and that they cannot justify the position. It is one of those points which I referred to in another debate which are causing differences of opinion between the Government Party and those who regard themselves as being for labour.
There is no use trying to fight theissue, but when it comes to a question of stressing unduly, in our opinion, the extra burden which will be put on the employer, which is not supported by any real facts, and, secondly, raising the question of the commercial relationship between the employer and the insurance company and putting them against the claim of the injured man or woman who is single, we cannot see eye to eye with the Government. It is one of those differences of opinion which will remain with us.
I am afraid that Deputy Cogan has not read the Bill carefully, otherwise he would not have spoken as he did. Under the 1948 Act, the agricultural worker got 75 per cent. of his wages, and he now virtually still gets it. Under the 1948 Act, as continued by this Bill, he can reach a ceiling of 50/-. He is only pulled down below the 75 per cent. where the 50/- is in excess of 75 per cent. of his wages. So far as the agricultural worker is concerned therefore, it can be said that he has been getting and is getting nearly 75 per cent. under this Bill. To that extent, he is as well off because this amendment does not really touch him very much. But, so far as the craftsman is concerned who is employed by a wealthy employer, while Deputy Cogan is perfectly satisfied that the ordinary farmer should pay 75 per cent. of his wages to an injured workman, he does not think the big employer should be asked to pay 75 per cent. or anything approaching it. Where the injured worker is a single man or woman, his concern is to make sure that the employer does not pay a penny more than he paid in 1948. Deputy Cogan is quite satisfied that the ordinary farmer who employs one or two men should be compelled to pay 75 per cent. of a worker's wages, but he is anxious that the big employers, whether they own a bacon factory or a flour mill or are fertiliser manufacturers should not be asked to pay 75 per cent. of an injured worker's wages. That privilege is reserved for the farmer. I hope the farmer will be pleased with his reasoning. Recent events would indicate, however, that they were not pleased in other respects. The Minister statedthat this Bill is introducing a new principle. We know it is.
We realise that the Bill will give some adjustment to certain people, to a man who has a wife and two children. In that case, again, Deputy Cogan ought to be correct, because a man must have a wife and two children—and both under 15—before he gets the 50 per cent. increase. It is not all married men who are to get the increase. Surely the Minister does not contend that the House is prevented from giving an increase to single men or women? There is nothing in the Bill which prevents us putting them in, and everything in reason suggests we do it, having regard to the shrunken value of money since 1948.We thought 50/- was a reasonable figure in 1948, and if it was reasonable then, it cannot be reasonable now, having regard to the decreased purchasing value of money. Where I find fault with the Minister is that while he recognises the case for a married man, that if you gave 50/- to a married man before, you have to increase that in 1953, having regard to the way in which prices have increased, but he does not do that in regard to the single man or woman. There is nothing to prevent us giving an increase to the single man or woman even though we introduce a new principle in doing so, but apparently, the Minister does not want to do it.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá 59; Níl 15.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- 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.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- de Valera, Eamon.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Fanning, John.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gallagher, Colm.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough).
- McCann, John.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Moran, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Níl
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Costello, Declan.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Everett, James.
- Hickey, James.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Norton, William.
- O'Leary, Johnny.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Killilea; Níl: Deputies Mac Fheórais and Kyne.
Question declared carried.
Amendment accordingly declared defeated.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 2, Section 3, sub-section (1), to delete paragraph (b) and substitute the following:—
"(b) if he has a child or children under the age of fifteen years, a supplementary allowance at a rate not exceeding 7/- per week in respect of each child."
This amendment is complementary to amendment No. 3, both of them being intended to try to improve the position common to all our amendments—to fix the weekly payments at 75 per cent. of the pre-accident average wage. More than that, however, is involved. In the Minister's proposals, as embodied in the Bill as introduced, provision is made for the payment of the supplementary allowance of 7/- per week in respect of each of the first two children. The amendment proposes that that supplementary allowance will be paid in respect of all children under the age of 15 years. The principle behind the amendment is already, in fact, embodied in the Workmen's Compensation Acts in so far as the method of calculation of compensation in the case of all juvenile dependents, of a workman who is killed in an accident in the course of his employment, takes into consideration the claims of all children under 15 years.
If the principle of considering claims of all juvenile dependents under 15 is good in the case where a workman is fatally injured by an accident, we submit the same principle should be equally good in the case of a workman who is totally incapacitated by an accident. Therefore, the claim of juvenile dependents is equally strong in such a case until such time as the workman recovers his capacity as in the case of a man fatally injured. For that reason we have put down this amendment to extend the supplementary allowance to all children under the age of 15 and not to confine it to the first two.
The greater part of what I said on the last amendment applies also to this one. There is the further fact that in the existing insurance schemes this practice of paying in respect to the first two children only has been initiated. Cognisance is also taken of the fact that there is a children's allowances scheme in operation for all classes. Again, if there is to be any attempt at incorporation of the workmen's compensation code in a national insurance scheme I do not think that we should start making innovations here which would make it more difficult to do that later.
I think that is the weakest and the most novel argument yet used against these amendments. Under the workmen's compensation code if a man is fatally injured, it is accepted that every one of his children under 15 are dependent on him. In this Bill the Minister introduced the novelty of providing for only two dependent children, if the workman is totally incapacitated. Instead of following the principle that a workman is liable to provide for all his dependent children, a principle which is recognised in the case of fatal accidents, the Minister stops liability at the first two children in the case of a workman totally incapacitated.
If you introduce the element that the father is responsible for maintaining all his children, without limiting it to two in the case of a fatal accident, why then not recognise a similar principle in the case of total incapacity in which the element of dependency arises no less than in the case of fatal injuries? In one case it is for the purpose of determining the lump sum to be paid but here there is a continuing weekly payment, similar in character to that which is paid under the national health insurance scheme and unemployment. That is the trouble. That is our complaint. Whenever the ultimate decision on the workman's compensation code is to be, it is quite clear that if the Minister determines the matter finally the workman's compensation code will be married to the social welfare code to the disadvantage of the workman and, so far as I cansee, to the very substantial advantage of the employer.
I have not said so.
It is not necessary to get out a poster to say what you are doing.
The more we widen the gap between the two schemes at the present time the harder it will be to have any relationship later on.
If dependency extends to all the children in respect of a fatal injuries accident why limit dependency to two children in the case of weekly compensation where total incapacity arises? Had the Minister kept to the old broad basis of 75 per cent., subject to a reasonable ceiling, all this trouble would not arise. It is the Minister who has caused this complication by introducing the novelty of a special allowance for the wife and two children.
This is the first time compensation has been related to two children under the workmen's compensation code. Hitherto, every child was assumed to be a dependent on the deceased father and compensation could be paid in respect of every child. Now it is proposed to limit it to two children. I can see no reason for that. We could quite easily recognise each of the children, particularly as in this case we are paying only 76/- per week. A craftsman with a wife and six, seven or eight children will get, under this Bill, compensation at the rate of 76/- per week to maintain himself, his wife and all his children.
That is not so. There are children's allowances. Why leave them out of the picture altogether?
They are there whether the accident is fatal or not. Why bring them in on one side of the balance sheet? Surely they must be added on both sides. If a craftsman meets with an accident involving total incapacity, the maximum compensation he will receive for himself, his wife and his ninechildren, if he has nine children, will be £3 16s. per week. The compensation is limited to two children. That might be justified if the total compensation paid were adequate. But I think that £3 16s. per week for the maintenance of a man, his wife and any number of children is unfair. If there is an anomaly, it is the Minister who is responsible for its introduction.
Every time Deputy Norton intervenes he seems to make himself more absurd. He objects to this principle of paying supplemental allowances in respect of two children.
We ought to extend it to all the children.
This whole idea originated in the brain of Deputy Norton, for it was he who introduced this idea first in his Social Welfare Bill, which never saw the light of day or never became the law.
The Deputy is suffering from amnesia or from some other malady, because he does not remember that he voted for that Bill.
Not only that, but in order to put it across and make it quite clear that he was only concerned with two children he got an artist to draw a picture of a man and his wife and two children who would benefit under that scheme. If he wants to throw any bricks now in regard to this limitation of allowances, he ought to throw them at himself because he was the author of the scheme. Now that an attempt is being made to bring workmen's compensation into relationship with social welfare legislation, Deputy Norton objects to the principle he himself introduced. I think he is only trying to find ways and means of obstructing this very useful and valuable piece of legislation in order to prevent it from becoming law.
God help Fianna Fáil when it is reduced to dependence on this; this is a new low-water mark in Fianna Fáil history.
I was struck by the fact that the Minister made the point of bringing in children's allowances. Itis true that there are children's allowances under the social welfare code. If the Minister sees fit to give 7/- in respect of each of the first two children, should there not be on that basis some system of graded allowances in respect of the remaining children for the purpose of bringing the allowance up to the required 7/- for each child? Surely there is a case for a graded allowance of 3/- in respect of the remainingchildren. The responsibility for all the children must fall on the parents, no matter what the Minister thinks. If the full allowance of 7/- cannot be paid, surely a graded allowance of some kind for all the remaining children should be introduced.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided:—Tá, 60; Níl, 16.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- 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.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- de Valera, Eamon.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Fanning, John.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gallagher, Colm.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough).
- McCann, John.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- 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.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Níl
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Thomas, N.J.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Costello, Declan.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Everett, James.
- Hickey, James.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Norton, William.
- O'Leary, Johnny.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Killilea; Níl: Deputies Mac Fheórais and Kyne.
Motion declared carried.
Ordered: "That the words stand."
I move amendment No. 5:—
In page 4, Section 3, sub-section (9), paragraph (a), line 40 to delete all the words after "him" to the end of the paragraph.
An amendment which we had down to sub-section (9) of Section 3 on the Committee Stage proposed to delete certain words so as to make all children whether born before or after an accident eligible to qualify for thepayment of supplemental allowances. That was one of the amendments that was withdrawn on the understanding that the Minister would examine the position in preparation for the Report Stage. The Minister has not dealt with it in any of his amendments and, possibly, the Minister for Industry and Commerce could indicate what view the Minister for Social Welfare takes on it.
The principle involved is one that is not met by the arguments that we have hitherto put forward in regard to maintaining a certain parallel development with the provisions in other of our social welfare legislation. The Minister himself has introduced the principle of payments to children, but has limited it to two. He is limiting it in respect of children born to a claimant not later than nine months after the accident. In another amendment, the Minister proposes to extend the nine months to ten months.
The point of view was forcibly expressed in the Committee discussions that it seemed to be not merely unfair but open to objection from many aspects to say to an injured workman who might be incapacitated for life that, while he would be paid compensation in respect of the children born to him within the immediate period of the accident, no further claim could arise in respect of the children born at a later date.
To that extent it was felt that while there might be moral arguments against that point of view it was unfair to extend that. If the man's incapacity was going to last during his lifetime there would be a recognition of his entitlement to compensation in respect of his wife and two of the children up to the time of the accident but, in the case where a man had only one child at the date of the accident, the extension of the children's supplemental allowance to the second child, where that child was born after the accident, would not be granted. In so far as the workman continued to suffer from the results of the accident, which involved continual incapacity, it seems to be unfair that the limit should beplaced at that particular point and that he should not be entitled to the supplemental allowance in respect of a second child who might be born subsequent to ten months after the accident.
Frankly, I can see no reason for that limitation. If we accept the Minister's point of view that the limitation should be placed at the point of the second child, surely that limitation to two children should continue by giving the benefit to the workman in respect of that second child, irrespective of when it was born.
The only argument the Minister put forward on the occasion of the Committee Stage was that in respect of an employer it was only fair that he should be aware of his liability and that he should not be left in the position that at some future date there would be an additional liability placed upon him by the birth of a child, who was not living at the time the accident occurred. We are again back at the old problem that we are not in practice placing the liability or the burden in a practical sense on the employer. It is being carried by the insurance company. The fact that compensation may be payable in the form of a supplemental allowance for a further child or a further two children need not drastically affect the basis on which the insurance policies are worked out and the basis of calculation of the premiums.
Earlier, the Tánaiste expressed the view that in respect of changes envisaged in this Bill the insurance companies would work on a statistical basis. We had the same information from the Minister for Social welfare. Some of us have a good deal of doubt in that matter, and we feel that insurance companies will rather go by a rule of thumb and that the rule of thumb will work out to their advantage, and that in the main the premiums will be based, so far as competition between insurance companies will allow it, on the assumption that in fact the cover is to cover married men and married men with two children. From that point of view, frankly, I do not see any great difficulty arising in extending sub-section(9) so as to make it possible that in the case of an injured workman he can, in respect of a child born later than ten months after the date of the accident, be entitled to the supplemental allowance now being provided by the Minister in the Bill.
Deputy Larkin is correct in saying that this amendment was proposed in Committee and, as it seemed to me to be in line with another amendment the Minister promised to consider, I undertook to consider this one also. He tells me he has done so and has considered it very carefully and has decided against it. I think he must attach due weight to the argument that an employer should be in a position to know where he stands and not be liable to have his obligations to the worker increased by future happenings. It seems to me that is a reasonable principle.
It is rather beside the point to argue that, in fact, some employers may ensure against their liability under this Bill. An employer is not obliged to insure. If we had incorporated in the workmen's compensation code the principle of compulsory insurance then there would be no force in that argument but, as we have not got that principle, as an employer is entitled to carry this obligation on his own account, it is reasonable to say that he should be entitled to know, as from the time the accident occurs, what his liability to that workman is and to make whatever provision he thinks necessary against that liability without having his obligation increased in future. On the basis of that principle, the Minister felt it was undesirable that this amendment should be accepted.
I think the Minister is assuming that every door is closed against the possibility of the liability of the employer being increased. If the Minister looks at the 1948 Act he will see that an injured workman who is in receipt of a certain sum of compensation can go to the court and establish that his wages would have been increased by 20 per cent. if he had not been injured. The court can make an award to him of new compensation.That can be done five years after he was paid the original compensation. In that particular case, so far as the employer is concerned, he does not know the ceiling of the liability. It depends on fluctuations of price levels. An injured workman can go back to court and get his compensation increased presumably by as much as, or related to, a 20 per cent. increase in the cost of living, or even more if the cost of living has gone up more.
That would only apply where the 75 per cent. of the pre-accident earnings was less than 50/-.
Yes, or in this case or in the case of partial incapacity as well as total incapacity. In this particular case, as the section stands, you may have a workman injured; that may have happened immediately after he was married; he may have met with a serious accident which necessitates his absence from work for two or three years. During that period two children may be born.
He is then in a position of being a man with a wife and two children and may get the 76/- provided for in this Bill but, if you leave the Bill as it is he can only get compensation in respect of himself and his wife; he can get no compensation in respect of the two children, even though this is a Bill designed to give every man with a wife and two children who meets with an accident a certain sum not being less than 76/- per week. If, therefore, you seal down the Bill as it stands at the moment you will deprive that man of compensation for the two children. That is surely against the general intention of the Bill which is that a man who has a wife and two children and meets with an accident ought to get 76/-. He will not. All he will get is 62/- instead of the 76/- normally given to a man who has a wife and two children. I do not suppose there is any use in arguing logically this evening. This does not seem to be the day for that.
Is not there a very important moral issue involved? Where do the rights of man come in? If a married man is injured, unless the child is born within ten months after the date of the accident, he will not bepaid compensation in respect of that child or of a second child. A pagan country would not introduce a clause such as that in any measure. I am arguing from that point of view apart from anything else. I suggest that there is a little more in this than looking after insurance companies and employers. There is a much higher purpose to be served.
Up to now the employer's liability was a fixed sum irrespective of the marital conditions or family circumstances of the worker. He knew precisely where he stood and what was his liability.
I know that. We are here as legislators and we should have more regard for our Constitution than to put a clause like that into this Bill.
I would support this amendment. As I said on the Second Reading, there is no doubt that the section as it stand encourages birth control.
I would not go that far.
It is unchristian.
The law must have had that effect for many years.
It had not. We are now bringing it to the notice of the workmen.
It was embodied in legislation before this.
We are now bringing it to the notice of the workman that he is to receive no benefit for any child born nine months later than the time at which he meets with the accident and receives injury. We are going further. We are providing for illegitimate children who are born within nine months, but no provision is being made for legitimate children born later than nine months after a worker meets with an injury. There is a lot to be said for the amendment and it should be most acceptable to the Minister from a Christian point of view.
One can imagine the case of a married man who meets with a seriousaccident and who may have ten or 12 in family in the ordinary course of events. Where is the finance to come from to bring up, feed and educate these children? He is tied to whatever allowance is being granted to him in his personal capacity and an allowance for his wife and two children; no allowance whatsoever is made for any child born later than nine months after the injury. I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment, as I think it would be a Christian thing. We have discussed the question of no provision being made for bachelors who marry subsequently. Here we have the case of a man who is married and who has got two children and no financial provision is made for any children born later than nine months afterwards.
The Deputy may be sure that the Christian principles are the same to-day as they were five years ago.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
On the previous stage when we were discussing this matter the Minister agreed to a suggestion of mine that matters such as this are matters proper for consideration by a parliamentary Committee. I agree that there should be provision made for an injured workman's children, but we have to look at it from the point of view of the employer, who in many cases is not the owner of a big concern but is a very small employer, and who, if he is wise, ought to be insured. The principle of compulsory insurance has to be considered in regard to this. I believe that if we are going to make provision for additional children's allowances for an injured workman we will have to provide these allowances through the State and not by means of compulsion on the insurance company or on private individuals. That is why I think that the sooner this Bill is got through as it stands and allowed to operate and the sooner a Committee is set up to consider all the implications of these matters the better.
We are trying to do two things. We are trying to impose a sort of State type of scheme on what I might termordinary private enterprise in connection with workmen's compensation insurance. Deputy O'Donnell should realise the difficulties in a matter of that kind. This Bill provides that a married man with two children will get 12/- for his wife and 14/- for his children, a total of 26/-. That increases the ceiling from 50/- to 76/- for that type of worker. There is no doubt that that is a welcome development. It has been brought in by the Government after the mature consideration that proposals of this kind get, having been examined by all the Departments.
Nobody in this House can be satisfied with the whole workmen's compensation code as it operates at present. We have to take a decision in the near future whether we are to allow it to continue as it is, whether we will bolster it up by the addition of State funds, whether we will make it a State business entirely, or whether we shall have compulsory insurance. Every Deputy must agree with what Deputy Hickey has said. In my view, a Committee of Deputies or of Senators will have to sit down and work out what we consider to be the best thing we can do in regard to workmen's compensation. I do not agree that 50/- is adequate compensation for an injured workman. I think we will have to do a lot better than that, but we cannot just do it on the proposal of a private Deputy. It has to be considered in all its implications and there has to be a scheme brought forward which will have the support of this House and which will be put into operation by this House.
So far as the Bill provides for an additional 26/- a week for perhaps a pretty large class of workmen, it is to be welcomed, but we will have to consider all these other matters before we can go much further. That is why we ought to take the Bill as it stands and get our Committee going. The Minister should be able to give an assurance on the last stages of the Bill that this contemplated parliamentary Committee will be put to work immediately the Dáil reassembles so that all these matters will be considered.
We are not discussing whether 50/- is adequate or inadequate. We should discuss the implications of this clause, which is a pagan clause. I do not want the House to put its name to it. If a married man is injured and it is 12 months before he can resume work and a child is born later than ten months after he receives the injury he will not get any payment for that child. I am objecting to that. I said before that no pagan country would enact some of the legislation that we have enacted. For years we have had social welfare legislation here under which an unemployed man receiving unemployment assistance can only get benefit for five children, although he may have ten dependent children.
That does not arise on this amendment.
It is somewhat similar to the clause we are putting into this Bill, and I would ask the Minister not to insert that.
Would the Minister agree that by accepting the amendment, in view of sub-section (3) of Section 3 (b) that still only two children would be entitled to allowances?
That is all.
And by accepting the amendment you are only making a provision for——
You are providing for the old liability which has always been a principle of the Acts.
Some Deputies are salving their consciences by saying they will wait for the comprehensive scheme.
The amendment would involve a whole lot of consequential amendments.
The Minister makes the point that the employer is entitled to know what his liability will be. Theemployer to-day does not know what his liability will be, and immediately this Act is passed his liability is increased. We have increased his liability without his knowledge, without any forewarning or any intimation to him that within a certain period after this Bill goes through the Dáil and Seanad, if he has an injured workman with a wife and two children he will have to pay an extra 26/- a week. That is the same principle that is being used against the amendment. The employer is being required to shoulder a liability he is not aware of. We are doing that by passing this Bill and the House has put that unknown liability into the Bill.
It is quite illogical to use that argument where an amendment proposes to apply a principle put in the Bill by the Government in respect of children. It is said that that amendment cannot be accepted because we would be imposing a liability on the employer of which he has no foreknowledge, but the present Bill is doing the same thing. Every employer who has an injured workman with a wife and one or two children will have increased liability on him as soon as this Bill becomes law and it is being done without any foreknowledge so far as the employers are concerned.The principle cannot be good in one respect and bad in another.
It is a fact that the amendment is limited by the previous section of the Bill. If the amendment is accepted, it is not a fact that every child born ten months after the accident is going to become a liability on the employer. The limitation of two children is still there. All that is suggested is that if we are introducing the principle of payment of allowances on the first two children under 15 years of age where they are born within a period not more than ten months after the accident, that the same payment should be given to children born after the accident. It is the application of the same principle. We are not imposing any greater unknown liability than the Bill itself is imposing by introducing the principle of payment for a wife and two children.
It is quite absurd for the Minister or any member of the House to justify rejection of the application of this principle on the ground that it is better to wait for the comprehensive scheme. The principle is there, and the unknown liability is already imposed in the Bill on the employers of this country.
Question put: "That the words ‘not later than' stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Tá, 58; Níl, 17.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- 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.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- de Valera, Eamon.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Fanning, John.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gallagher, Colm.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough).
- McCann, John.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Moran, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Níl
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Thomas, N.J.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Deering, Mark.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Everett, James.
- Finan, John.
- Hickey, James.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Norton, William.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Killilea; Níl: Deputies Mac Fheórais and Kyne.
Question declared carried.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In page 4, Section 3, line 41, to delete "nine" and substitute "ten".
The purpose of this is obvious.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In page 5, Section 6, line 22, to insert "or, if the workman satisfies the Court in which the proceedings are instituted that there were substantial grounds for his not having instituted the proceedings within the said 12 months within 24 months from the occurrence of the accident," before "and".
The provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Bill permit an injured workman or his dependents to maintain proceedings to recover damages independently of the Workmen's Compensation Act, provided the proceedings are instituted within 12 months of the occurrence of the accident. There was some discussion upon that time limit during the Committee Stage and the Minister undertook to consider the matter. This amendment permits of proceedings being taken by a workman within 24 months provided the court is satisfied that there were substantial grounds for his not having instituted proceedings within 12 months. That seems to be a reasonable provision to meet the case that was made.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8 which is consequential:—
In page 5, Section 7, line 50, to insert "or, if the workman satisfies the Court in which the proceedings are instituted that there were substantial grounds for his not having instituted the proceedings within the said 12 months, within 24 months from the occurrence of the accident," before "and".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:—
In page 6, to insert before Section 9 a new section as follows:—
"(1) Notwithstanding any rule of law or anything contained in the Act of 1934, where it appears to the court, at the hearing of a claim for compensation under the Act of 1934 or of an application under Section 25 of the Act of 1934 for review of a weekly payment, that the incapacity which resulted from the injury caused to the workman has ceased, but that there is a reasonable probability that it will recur, the court may make an order containing a declaration to that effect and reserving liberty to both the workman and the employer toapply to the court to reconsider such order.
(2) Where, at the hearing of an application to reconsider an order under sub-section (1) of this section, it appears to the court that the incapacity which resulted from the injury caused to the workman has recurred, the court may deal with the application as if it were a claim for compensation under the Act of 1934 and for that purpose may treat the day on which such incapacity recurred as the day on which such injury was caused to the workman."
This amendment also follows on an undertaking given by the Minister for Social Welfare to consider an amendment moved by Deputies Larkin and Norton on the Committee Stage. The object is to enable the court to make an order declaring that there is a reasonable probability that incapacity will recur as a result of the injury and the workman can use that to keep his case alive.
The power of the court will, however, be exercisable only at a hearing of the claim for compensation on an application for review of the weekly payment and it will not extend because of legal objections, as was proposed in the original amendment by Labour Party Deputies, to cases where payments have ceased and where the cases are, in effect, closed without such declaratory order having been made. Unless such order has been made either at a hearing of a claim for compensation or an application for review, then the case is closed.
Amendment put and agreed to.