Amendment No. 6 could be taken with amendment No. 1.
Social Welfare (Occupational Injuries) Bill, 1965: Report and Final Stages.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 4, line 4, to insert "or subsection (9)" before "of".
It is a drafting amendment which arises out of amendment No. 6.
Deputies will remember that, during Committee Stage, Deputy T.J. Fitzpatrick (Cavan) had an amendment down in connection with the gratuity of £380 which is payable in respect of disablements below 20 per cent. That represents, roughly, seven years value of the weekly rate of disablement pension. I undertook to bring in an amendment giving such people the option of taking a weekly pension of an appropriate amount and that is what this amendment is doing.
Why, again, have we amendments without reference to sections? Has it become a practice of the House that this is the way they are to be presented? It is almost impossible to follow them because of the way they are down on the list of amendments.
This is the form in Report Stage. The Deputy is aware that it is not section by section on Report Stage.
But there should be a reference to the section, the line and the page.
The Deputy can introduce that——
I am afraid I shall have to.
It is the form for Report Stage. The Bill is not taken section by section.
To refer to the section would not make it any easier.
(Cavan): What section is the Minister dealing with?
It is only a question of looking it up—section 9.
(Cavan): I understand the effect of this amendment is to meet a point raised by me on Committee Stage. While, as Deputy Tully has just said, it is very difficult to follow the amendments without reference to the sections they amend, I understand from the Minister that the effect of the amendment is that the Minister or the Department cannot now compel the injured workman to accept his compensation by weekly payments rather than by lump sum. Am I correct in that?
No. This was in connection with degrees of disablement under 20 per cent for which in the original Bill the only compensation was by way of lump sum. Deputy Fitzpatrick argued that in cases where this disablement benefit was paid for a longer period than seven years, the person concerned was not being as favourably treated as others and I undertook to allow such a person to opt for a weekly payment. But this does not apply to degrees of disablement above 20 per cent where the benefit is still as it was. The compensation will be by way of weekly pension only.
(Cavan): Instead of being confined to a maximum of £320, he will now get a weekly pension.
Which could be based on what £320 would produce——
Yes, over seven years. It will be scaled down appropriately.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 2 may not be moved.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 9, line 34, to delete "Occupational injuries benefit shall subject to regulations" and substitute "Except where regulations otherwise provide, occupational injuries benefit shall not".
This is merely to bring the wording, used in an amendment proposed by Deputy Tully on Committee Stage and which I accepted, into line with similar provisions elsewhere in the Bill. On Committee Stage we inserted "Occupational injuries benefit shall, subject to regulations, be payable in respect of an accident while the insured person is outside the State." For that we want to substitute "except where regulations otherwise provide, occupational injuries benefit shall not..."
Thank you; that meets the point. The reason for the amendment was to prevent a situation where a workman insured in this State would go outside the State on his employer's business, meet with an injury in his employment and, as the Bill was worded, would not be entitled to compensation. This brings him into the legislation and I am satisfied with it.
It was always intended to make these regulations, as I explained already.
Amendment agreed to.
(Cavan): I move amendment No. 4:
In page 10, between lines 20 and 21, to insert a new subsection as follows:
"() The Minister shall, not later than one year from the coming into operation of this Act, make an order, a draft whereof shall have been first approved by each House of the Oireachtas, providing that where the beneficiary's pre-accident weekly rate of earnings is £10 or more, injury benefit shall be seventy-five per cent of the beneficiary's pre-accident weekly rate of earnings and for the appropriate modification of the employment contributions."
The aim of the amendment is to ensure that the flat rate of compensation payable to an injured workman, irrespective of the amount of his earnings, will not continue indefinitely. The amendment seeks to make it obligatory on the Minister to bring in regulations within 12 months ensuring that in the case of an injured workman whose earnings exceed £10 per week, he would be paid 75 per cent of his pre-accident wages. We think, and have always thought, that considerable hardship can be caused where a workman in receipt of a wage considerably more than £10 a week is to be confined to the same rate of compensation as a workman in receipt of less than £10 per week.
Naturally, since the two people had different standards of living before the accident, if they are to be compensated by awarding each the same amount of weekly compensation, injustice and hardship may result. The amendment is proposed to give the Minister power to vary the contribution at the same time as he brings in these regulations. It is difficult to see what objection he can have to the amendment because it is only natural and reasonable that a workman receiving a higher rate of pay should get a higher rate of compensation. I understand the intention of the Bill is to endeavour to place a workman to some extent in his pre-accident condition. It is not intended that he should get 100 per cent of his wages and the amendment does not seek that but it seeks that a man receiving a higher rate of weekly pay than £10 should receive 75 per cent of his pre-accident wages. The existing Workmen's Compensation Acts up to a certain limit recognised the principle we are putting forward here.
It is not necessary to labour the point any further: we made the case as strenuously as we could on Committee Stage but I should like to hear the Minister's reaction to this amendment which gives him power to make regulations implementing the amendment and to reimburse the fund for any additional expense which may be put upon it by varying the contribution.
My reaction to the amendment is the same as it was on Committee Stage. It is estimated that this proposal would cost about £150,000 a year extra and the contribution would have to be increased to provide for that. It was not recommended by either section of the Commission that examined this matter and our social insurance system, so far at any rate, provides for flat rate benefits. I am not against the principle of wage-related benefits in theory but if they are to be introduced, it should be done on a global basis rather than do it here and not do it for social welfare benefits generally.
Deputy Fitzpatrick's proposal is that there should be wage-related benefits for earnings in excess of £10 per week and contributions would have to be adjusted for people in that range of employment. Another point I should like to make is that people in that range of earnings would include many in occupations in which the risk is relatively low. As we have a flat rate system in the Bill, those employing such people have certain complaints that they are helping to finance the risks of other types of employment. It would hardly be fair, then, to put a further impost on such employers to cover wage related benefits, without possibly going into the question of degrees of risk. So, I am not prepared to accept the amendment but I do not preclude the possibility at some time in the future of bringing in the idea of wage relation generally in regard to social welfare benefits. It seems to me a development that will come at some stage.
(Cavan): I do not know whether I have the right to reply.
The Deputy has the right to conclude. Any other Deputy who wishes to speak should do so before Deputy Fitzpatrick concludes.
(Cavan): I am glad the amendment has, at least, brought from the Minister a statement that he approves of benefit or compensation being related to wages. That is elementary and I am glad that the discussions on Committee Stage and, perhaps, the tabling of the amendment, have brought from the Minister the statement that he accepts, and more particularly, I suppose, his Department accept, as sound the proposition that the compensation should be related to wages and that he will think about it in the future.
However, I am disappointed that the Minister did not accept the amendment and thus commit himself to doing something tangible and positive to implement the proposition which he accepts as sound, namely, that compensation should be related to the rate of wages. When the Minister accepts that, there is no reason why he should not go the whole way and agree to implement that policy within 12 months.
Amendment put and declared lost.
(Cavan): I move amendment No. 5:
In page 12, to delete lines 18 and 19.
This amendment is in relation to payment of a small amount of disability benefit. The benefit in this case is fixed at £380. The sum is fixed. Then the paragraph of the Bill goes on to lay down that the Minister may make regulations ordering that the compensation be paid by instalments. If that were a proposition to give an indefinite pension instead of a lump sum I would not have any fault to find with it but, as I understand it, it means that this comparatively paltry sum of £380, or whatever it is, is to be paid by instalments if the Minister so thinks fit. If the Minister is not prepared to accept my amendment and to delete paragraph (b) of subsection (7), I should like him to intimate to the House the type of case in which he thinks he would invoke the powers conferred upon him by this paragraph to order that the amount be paid by instalments.
Very often, the amount, small as it is, may enable the injured workman to rehabilitate himself or to set himself up in some other way of earning an income, perhaps to buy a machine or vehicle or something that will enable him to earn a living. If it were spread out into payments of a few shillings a week it is difficult to see what good it would do. If the Minister says that he wants to protect the workman from himself from squandering the amount that he will get I do not think that argument holds water because the amount the workman would be getting is very small. If the Minister takes power to order payment by instalment it may be done in cases where it would not be in the interests of the workman to do it.
Deputy Fitzpatrick said that he would not object to this if it were a provision for an indefinite pension. Of course, I am making provision for altering this to allow a person to opt for a pension of indefinite duration in amendment No. 6. That is being done. The regulation provided for in this section may not be made at all but the type of circumstances in which I can visualise the power being desirable is in the case of children. In the case of a child this gratuity would be payable to the guardian. If the child were about to come of age within a short period it might or might not be desirable to retain some of the amount to pay to the worker when he did come of age. I do not know whether circumstances will make it desirable to make this regulation or not but I think I should have the power to do it in case it appeared to be desirable. It might be desirable to retain the bulk of the money to give to the individual himself when he came of age. That is the type of circumstances I visualise arising.
(Cavan): Is the Minister saying that under the Bill as it stands the lump sum would be paid to a minor?
No. I am saying it could be paid to the guardian of a minor.
I am not a legal man and therefore, I do not get the niceties of this. Surely existing legislation provides that payment such as this in the case of a minor would be paid into court and provision is made for portion of the money, where necessary, to be paid out? If that is so, is there some other reason why this phraseology is used? Personally I can see no reason for it. It is not a new type of legislation. It will be governed by common law, I assume. I do not think that even the provision as stated in the Bill will alter that. The only thing I would be afraid of is that it would be possible to allow the State, for some extraordinary reason, to say that the £300 odd which would be due to a man was not to be paid out at one time but was to be paid out over a period. That is the only reading I can make of it. Otherwise, the provision seems entirely unnecessary. The Minister would be well advised either to take it out of the Bill altogether or to consider it before the Bill reaches the Seanad and to make arrangements to have it taken out. It may be confusing.
There is nothing confusing about it. It is desirable to have this power in the Bill.
The Minister did not make a very convincing argument when he was on his feet.
I indicated the type of case in which it might be desirable, that is, the case of a minor who would be coming of age shortly. It might be desirable in that case to keep the bulk of the money and to pay the minor himself.
That is already in. There is no need for that provision at all.
It could be made payable to the guardian.
(Cavan): The Minister——
The Deputy will understand that we are on Report Stage now.
(Cavan): I am replying to an amendment which I moved and the Ceann Comhairle has ruled that I have the right of reply. The Minister, in resisting this amendment, has stated that the only case in which he thinks it would be necessary to invoke the powers given here would be to preserve some of the lump sum for a minor about to come of age. I think Deputy Tully is correct when he says that under the existing law the money must be paid into court. If it is paid to a guardian, that guardian cannot use it as he likes: it must be placed in trust for the minor. The amount is paid into court under a very inexpensive procedure and the judge is usually very careful and most jealous to see that the money is not paid out, unless he is satisfied that it is being paid out in the interests of the minor.
Judges are very reluctant to pay out money to minors, unless they are satisfied, first, that it will be applied on behalf of the minor and, secondly, that the manner in which it is to be spent is in the minor's interest. I do not know whether there is some clause in the Bill whereby a lump sum can be paid to a guardian to do what he likes with it. If there is a provision in the Bill that a lump sum of £380 can be paid to a guardian to do what he likes with it and with no control over him, it is time steps were taken to remedy that state of affairs.
The Minister made his case on the basis that the lump sum could be paid to the guardian. That guardian might be the father of a large family and that £380 could be applied to meet the wants of some of the other children who were not injured at all, or it might find its way into the bookie's shop or into the publichouse. I hope that is not the law under this Bill. From considerable experience, I know that it is not safe to give a large sum of money, or a moderate sum of money such as £380, to a guardian and expect that guardian to apply it solely in the interests of the injured person. It is most unlikely that that will happen, perhaps through want or through stupidity, or for some other reason. If the Minister believes that is the law or that it will be the law under this Bill, he should consider the matter carefully. If he is not prepared to accept the amendment, he should consider the matter before it reaches the Seanad and should take steps to put it right.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 13, before line 4, to insert the following subsection before subsection (9):
(9) (a) Where, apart from this subsection, a gratuity would fall to be paid under subsection (7) of this section in a case in which the period taken into account by the assessment of disablement is the period of the claimant's life or a period exceeding seven years, the following provisions shall have effect if the claimant opts, before the gratuity is paid, for the substitution of a pension for the gratuity:
(i) the gratuity shall not be paid,
(ii) disablement benefit shall be a pension (in this Act also referred to as a disablement pension) at the weekly rate appropriate in accordance with a prescribed scale,
(iii) the disablement pension shall be for the period taken into account by the assessment of disablement subject to the proviso that, where that period is limited by reference to a definite date, the pension shall cease on the death of the beneficiary before that date.
(b) the following provisions shall apply with respect to the scale prescribed for the purposes of this subsection:
(i) the scale shall be the same for all persons, except that a lower amount may be fixed thereby for cases where the beneficiary is under the age of eighteen years or, being over that age, is a married woman other than a married woman living apart from and unable to obtain any financial assistance from her husband unless the beneficiary would, if in receipt of injury benefit rather than disablement pension, be entitled to an increase of that benefit for a child qualified for the purposes of this Act or children so qualified or for an adult dependant,
(ii) different amounts may be specified in relation to the different percentages under twenty per cent but, as respects each such amount, it shall be not less than the amount which bears to the disablement pension appropriate to a degree of disablement of twenty per cent (that is to say, 23s. 0d. or 15s. 6d., as may be appropriate) the same proportion as the percentage with respect to which it is specified bears to twenty per cent."
I understand that amendment No. 6 is consequential on amendment No. 1.
It is the other way around: amendment No. 1 is consequential on amendment No. 6. We dealt with No. 6 when we were dealing with No. 1.
Amendment agreed to.
(Cavan): I move amendment No. 7:
In page 14 to delete lines 12 to 23 inclusive and substitute "equal to the injury benefit".
The object of this amendment is to ensure that disability pensions will not be less than the injury benefits. I know that the Minister has certain views on this matter and that he stated them on Committee Stage but I would like to hear his views on it again. As the Bill stands, a person could, while continuing to suffer the same percentage of disability, find that his compensation, which is what I will call it to cover both categories of benefit and pension, could be substantially reduced. If that is the case, I think it is unfair and that it would inflict a hardship on the injured workman.
To provide that a disablement pension can be increased until it is equal to the injury benefit is unlikely to be of any benefit to the vast majority of persons who would qualify for disablement pensions and also be unfit for work. In the normal case such as that, the person concerned would have full rate disablement pension or something close to it. The disablement pension would already be equal or very nearly equal to the rate of injury benefit. Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment, in the vast majority of cases, possibly in all cases, would work out to the disadvantage of the injured workman. What we are providing here is that a workman who does not qualify because of contributions for disability benefit will not suffer because of that. He will get the unemployability supplement at the same rate as disability benefit.
A person who is so seriously disabled as to qualify for the full benefit will get 115/- per week personal rate and 52/6d. per week unemployability supplement. If the amendment was accepted the maximum he would get would be the 115/- injury benefit. The amendment, which is to ensure that a theoretical type of case would get the full 115/- per week, would be to the disadvantage of the seriously disabled workman. It is very unlikely that a person whose rate of disablement benefit is small would also be completely unfit for work and therefore I think this amendment would be a substantial disimprovement of the Bill and I would not be prepared to accept it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 8 and amendments Nos. 10 and 11, which are consequential, could be taken with it.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 17, line 5, to insert "the deceased having been at death a married person," before "death".
These amendments arise out of amendments put down on Committee Stage in regard to the rates of death benefit paid to parents who are wholly dependent on a deceased workman. The rates proposed in the original Bill were 24/- in respect of each of such parents. As a result of the discussion we had I undertook to consider whether I could do something better in the case of dependent parents of an unmarried workman and I am proposing to give a pension equivalent to the rate of a widow's pension to one such parent and a pension of 24/-, as was proposed, to the other parent. That should meet the case that was made because, as Deputy Fitzpatrick said, it is normally expected that it would be the unmarried workman who would have such dependent parents.
We are grateful to the Minister who has gone a long way to meet the case made and also for the fact that even though the Bill is based on British legislation, this is one case in which there has been a very big improvement on that legislation. While it is not all that we would desire, it is a tremendous improvement.
(Cavan): I join with Deputy Tully in thanking the Minister for the improvement his amendment will effect in this Bill. It does really show the worth of a discussion in this House. When the Bill was introduced, and indeed on Committee Stage, the parent of a deceased workman who was absolutely dependent on the deceased workman was not entitled to any benefit beyond a pension of £1-4-0 a week. I put down an amendment for the purpose of drawing attention to that state of affairs. Admittedly, I only asked that the 24/- be doubled to 48/- but nevertheless that amendment and the discussion which took place shocked this House. The House was shocked to learn that such a parent was only going to be compensated in the year 1966 by a miserable 24/- per week. The amendment is a great improvement on the Bill as originally drafted and goes a long way towards meeting the points which have been made. It does make it a condition of giving a pension that the parent, if he is a father, must be incapable of self-support by reason of some physical or mental infirmity and is likely to remain permanently so. I would make the point that you could have the case of a parent who although not physically unfit to earn his living, and perhaps strictly not mentally incapable, might be the type who was a misfit and could not get employment.
I hope the Minister and his advisers when interpreting this Bill when it becomes an Act will regard such a person as being mentally incapable of earning his living because there is definitely this type of misfit who while he could not be regarded as physically unable to earn his living, or mentally unfit, might be socially unfit because of a groove into which he had got or because of his make-up. I would suggest that such a case should be regarded as being mentally incapable of earning his living.
If the mother is alive, she would get the 95/-.
(Cavan): I appreciate that, but if the mother were dead and the father had the kind of make-up I am talking about, then on a strict interpretation of these regulations, he might again be reduced to the 24/- a week.
Let us hope it will not be too strict.
(Cavan): That is the point I am trying to make. I said on Committee Stage that there are people walking to the social welfare offices all over the country for as long as some of us can remember who are not physically unfit to work and who you could not say were mad but who are unemployable. They are a social problem. A person who is unemployable because of his general make-up should come under the definition of mental infirmity. Under a strict interpretation, he would be excluded but I repeat that we could name quite a few people who have been going to the labour exchanges for 20 years, who are not drunkards or criminals, and who could not be described as physically infirm or as being mad but who are unemployable. Nobody would employ them perhaps because of the way they were brought up or because of their make-up, and I would strongly appeal to the Minister and his advisers that perhaps between now and when the Bill reaches the Seanad they would try to relax this mental infirmity stipulation a little so as to cover this type of hard luck case.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 17, to insert the following subsections between lines 6 and 7:
"(3) In the case of a parent, the deceased having been at death a widower or widow or an unmarried person, death benefit shall be—
(a) where the parent is the father—a pension at the weekly rate of ninety-five shillings in case he was, at the death of the deceased, incapable of self-support by reason of some physical or mental infirmity and likely to remain permanently so incapable and at the weekly rate of twenty-four shillings in any other case,
(b) where the parent is the mother, having been, at the death of the deceased, a widow or having thereafter become a widow—a pension at the weekly rate of ninety-five shillings,
(c) where the parent is the mother not being a widow—a pension at the weekly rate of twenty-four shillings in case a pension at the weekly rate of ninety-five shillings under paragraph (a) of this subsection is payable to her husband and at the weekly rate of ninety-five shillings in any other case.
(4) Where a person to whom a pension at the weekly rate of ninety-five shillings under paragraph (a) of the foregoing subsection is payable ceases at any time to be incapable of self-support by reason of some physical or mental infirmity, the pension shall thereafter be payable at the weekly rate of twenty-four shillings and, if at that time a pension at the weekly rate of twenty-four shillings under paragraph (c) of that subsection is payable to his wife, that pension shall thereafter be payable at the weekly rate of ninety-five shillings."
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 17, line 28, to insert " `father' and" after "and".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 12, and perhaps with it we could take Nos. 13, 14 and 15 which are cognate.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 22, line 1, to delete "1964" and substitute "1966".
These are drafting amendments which are required because of the passage of the Health and Mental Treatment (Amendment) Act, 1966. The fact of that being passed requires the alteration of the collective citation of the Health Acts from the Health Acts 1947 to 1964 to the Health Acts 1947 to 1966 and a similar change in regard to the Mental Treatment Acts, from the Mental Treatment Acts 1945 to 1961 to the Mental Treatment Acts 1945 to 1966.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 22, line 2, to delete "1961" and substitute "1966".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 22, line 5, to delete "1964" and substitute "1966".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 22, line 6, to delete "1961" and substitute "1966".
Amendment agreed to.
(Cavan): I move amendment no 16:
In page 23, between lines 33 and 34, to insert a new subsection as follows:
"() Notwithstanding anything contained in subsections (1) and (2) of this section or any regulations made under subsection (1), the Minister may extend the period prescribed for the giving of notice of an accident in any case in which it seems proper to do so."
This amendment proposes to give discretion in regard to the giving of notice. Under these regulations notice must be given to the insured person's employer or other prescribed person by the injured workman. Any of us who have any experience of the operation of the workmen's compensation code which is being replaced by this measure know the amount of litigation caused by this very provision about giving notice. I would say the great volume of case law which came from the Supreme Court on the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1934, hinged around this question of notice.
This type of amendment should be dear to the Minister's heart. It is with some reluctance I move it, but I do so in an effort to give some safety valve to the workman who may omit to give notice. The amendment is phrased in the most reasonable terms. It simply asks that in any case not covered by the regulations and in which the Minister considers the workman had reasonable cause for not giving notice, the Minister should have power to extend the time. There is no appeal from anybody beyond the Minister.
The acceptance of the amendment might very well avoid the infliction of hardship on many workmen who for one reason or another may have overlooked giving notice and may not be able to bring themselves within the regulation and the Bill. If the Minister accepts the amendment, he will not be giving anything away. He might be accepting some further responsibility, but he would have all the facts before him. He would have the case made on behalf of the workman for failing to give notice. I am sure the Minister would exercise his discretion to extend the time only in a case in which it would be proper to do so.
I cannot think of any more reasonable request than this. In the past workmen have been denied any compensation at all because they overlooked to give notice and they found themselves completely excluded from the benefits of the workmen's compensation code, amounting perhaps to £4. 10s. per week for the rest of their lives. That is the sort of case in which I want the Minister to take authority to give relief. I may be pushing an open door. I hope I am. I hope the Minister has already decided to accept this amendment. It is difficult to see what case can be put up against it.
I fully support this amendment. As Deputy Fitzpatrick said, under the existing code, very many people fail to give notice and as a result are debarred from the benefits of the present workmen's compensation legislation. I am a trade union official. Every month or perhaps twice a month, complaints come from members who for one reason or another did not avail of their rights to claim workmen's compensation and who because of this failure are left outside.
It is bad enough when a commercial insurance company insist on their rights to refuse compensation because the law says they are entitled to do so, but in this case the State is involved. There is something which has been brought forcibly to my notice on a number of occasions and I do not know whether the Minister is aware of it. From time to time the Minister's Department, for which I have the highest respect, refuse to pay disability benefit to persons who have become ill because they did not give notice in time. I had the case recently of an old lady who never drew benefit in her life. She was seriously ill in hospital for many months. When she came back, she made application for disability benefit but was refused because she did not give notice in time. She could only be paid benefit from the period in which she gave notice or seven days afterwards. Since that is the interpretation given by the Minister's Department to the existing social welfare legislation, it follows that a similar interpretation will almost certainly be given in cases where this new workmen's compensation code, which is to be administered by the same Department, comes for consideration by the same officials.
The amendment moved by Deputy Fitzpatrick does not force the Minister to do anything, but gives him extra power in the event of something like this happening. There is an appeal to him and if he is satisfied, he can allow the late serving of notice. I think it is a good idea to have this included and I ask the Minister to accept it.
I thought both Deputy Tully and Deputy Fitzpatrick were satisfied on Committee Stage there was no need for this amendment at all.
We had another look at it.
Deputy Fitzpatrick refers to the position under the workmen's compensation legislation in which workmen have been denied compensation for failure to give notice. I thought I made is clear there was no question of this happening under this Bill. It is in the interest of everybody and in the interest of the worker in particular that notice should be given as soon as possible so that the facts can be established. That is all it is intended to do here—to provide that notice should be given as soon as practicable. This amendment proposes to give me power to extend the period prescribed for the giving of notice in any case in which it seems proper to do so. However, it is not intended to prescribe any fixed period for the giving of notice. It is merely intended to provide that notice should be given as soon as possible.
Would the Minister not have the right to prescribe a period?
I have no intention of doing so.
Would he have the right to?
I might, but it would not be a sensible thing to do. It might not be possible to do it at all.
The Minister or his successor might change his mind.
He would not be foolish enough to do that.
We have heard of foolish Ministers before.
It just would not be a practicable thing to do. There is no intention of prescribing any fixed period for the giving of notice, and it is not intended to deprive anybody of the right——
(Cavan): Section 27 (1) contains the phrase “may be payable to be given within the prescribed time.” Surely that means the Minister intends to prescribe a time.
The time that I propose to prescribe is as soon as it is practicable to do so. It is not the intention to deprive anybody of the right to claim benefit under this Bill. All that will happen is that payment will be suspended until such time as the employer has been notified of the occurrence. Therefore this certainly will not operate harshly.
(Cavan): Under subsection (2) good cause is required. Would the Minister regard ignorance as good cause?
Whether it is or not, all the person has to do is to give notice, and that will rectify the matter.
(Cavan): Retrospectively?
Yes, but payment will not be made until such time as notice is given. Any arrears that have accumulated will be paid if the claim is subsequently allowed.
If a former employer is not available, as has happened in a number of cases under the existing code, surely the new provision would tie it up completely?
How would Deputy Fitzpatrick's amendment get over that?
The time could be extended and compensation paid.
Nothing could be as wide as "as soon as practicable".
That is not what is in section 27. It says "within the prescribed time".
Regulations will be made. If Deputies like, I can read the regulations that are made under the British and Northern Ireland Act. Ours will be similar to that.
What does it say?
It is fairly long.
There must be one sentence which would be the nub of it.
The phrase used throughout is "as soon as practicable"
All right.
After the happening of an accident.
(Cavan): If what the Minister says is correct, there does not seem to be any point in giving notice. I understand the Minister's interpretation of the position is that if the person does not give notice for six months but then gives notice, he will be entitled to be paid from the date of the accident.
If the accident can be established. It is in his own interest to give it.
(Cavan): According to section 27, notice must be given within a prescribed time. If that means anything, it must mean that the Minister is going to prescribe a time within which the notice must be given.
That is right, as soon as practicable.
(Cavan): If a man has his full senses and is living near his employer, “as soon as practicable” might be within a week or within a couple of days. There might be no reason, on the face of it, why he should not give notice within a couple of days. I was talking to a man yesterday who lost the sight of an eye in the course of his employment on 9th February last, and he is getting workmen's compensation at £4 10s. a week since that date. However, he is a married man with five children and he would be entitled to about £4 10s. a week more from the Department of Social Welfare to bring his workmen's compensation payment up to the rate of disability benefit applicable to his case. Because he was a hard-working man and never had any occasion to call on the Department of Social Welfare, he has been accepting since 9th February the £4 10s. workmen's compensation and has not applied to the Department of Social Welfare. As I understand the regulations in the Department at the moment, that man might—I am not saying he will and I sincerely hope he will not— be deprived of about £4 10s. per week from 9th February.
He has sent in his certificates.
(Cavan): He sent them in a heap the other day.
Is he unable to work?
(Cavan): Yes. The best evidence I can give of that is that he is getting £4 10s. per week from an insurance company who do not throw out compensation readily. If the Minister were to stand on his rights, I understand that man could be deprived of his social welfare from 9th February to date. The only reason that man has not applied for his social welfare supplement is ignorance. I should like to know whether the Minister would regard ignorance as a good cause. Subsection (2) of section 27 says: “In a case of failure without good cause...regulations may provide for disqualification for receipt of occupational injuries benefit or any amount under section 26 of this Act for such period as may be determined in accordance with the regulations.”
Unless I am particularly dull today, that section means two things: that the workman must report the accident within a specified time or within such time as is prescribed. If he fails to do that without good cause, he will be disqualified under the proposed regulations from entitlement to benefit for the period during which he did not report the accident. I warn the Minister that "good cause" is a very difficult phrase to interpret. The Department are inclined to be guided by precedent, and precedents will be set up and will be acted upon by the Minister and his successors. In the law courts, it has been well settled that ignorance is not an excuse for failing to do something, whether under the Landlord and Tenant Act for failing to give notice within two months of the expiration of tenancy, or under the workmen's compensation code.
I should like the Minister to say whether he would regard ignorance as a good cause because it goes to the root of the whole matter in the case I came across yesterday, a case which clearly demonstrates the point I am making. This married man with five children is getting £4 10s. per week when he is entitled to double that amount but, because he does not know he is entitled to it, he does not apply for it and he therefore loses it. I am asking the Minister to take unto himself the power to deal with that sort of case, the power to grant relief in that sort of case, and I am very disappointed that the Minister has seen fit not to accept the amendment.
Is the Deputy withdrawing the amendment?
(Cavan): No, Sir.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Amendment No. 17 in the name of Deputy James Tully is ruled out of order. It involves a proposal of substance which does not arise from Committee proceedings.
Amendment No. 17 not moved.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Question: "That the Bill do now pass", put and agreed to.