Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 17 Jan 1934

Vol. 18 No. 1

Slaughter of Animals Bill, 1933. - Workmen's Compensation Bill, 1933—Committee Stage.

Sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 put and agreed to.
SECTION 5.
(1) in this Act the word "workman" means a person who complies with both the following conditions, that is to say:—
(a) is either:—
(i) a person who has entered into or works under a contract of service or apprenticeship with an employer, whether by way of manual labour, clerical work, or otherwise, and whether the contract is expressed or implied or is oral or in writing, or
(ii) a person engaged in plying for hire with any vehicle or vessel the use of which is obtained from the owner thereof under any contract of bailment (other than a hire purchase agreement) in consideration of the payment of a fixed sum or a share in the earnings or otherwise, and
(b) is not an excepted person.
(2) Each of the following persons shall be an excepted person for the purpose of this section, that is to say:—
(a) a person employed otherwise than by way of manual labour whose remuneration exceeds three hundred and fifty pounds a year;
(b) a person whose employment is of a casual nature unless such person is either:—
(i) employed for the purposes of his employer's trade or business, or
(ii) employed for the purposes of any game or recreation and engaged or paid through a club, or
(iii) employed for the purposes of any work in or about the residence of his employer;
(c) a member of the Gárda Síochána;
(d) a member of the Defence Forces of Saorstát Eireann, including a member of the Reserve established under Part III of the Defence Forces (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1923 (No. 30 of 1923), in respect of any accident arising out of and in the course of his military service or otherwise howsoever under his contract of enlistment; (e) a person to whom articles or materials are given out to be made up, cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented or repaired, or adapted for sale in his own home or on other premises not under the control or management of the person who gave out the materials or articles;
(f) a member of the employer's family dwelling in his house.

I propose amendment No. 1:

Section 5, sub-section (1). After the word "writing" in line 41 to insert the words "and whether the work to be undertaken under the contract is performed in Saorstat Eireann or elsewhere."

This amendment endeavours to deal with the question that arose in the Dáil and which was fully discussed there. It was also discussed in the Seanad on the Second Reading. The case was made that the position of a workman employed by an employer in Saorstát Eireann at work in Northern Ireland was not covered. It was sought to make it possible or rather a matter of obligation on the employer that that workman would be in a position to claim compensation and obtain it by law. As the Bill stands, such a person would not be in a position to claim compensation. Difficulties have arisen of course and I appreciate the point that the Minister has made that there are certain problems in the way, particularly the problem of preventing double compensation being paid in respect of the same accident to the same workman. But two later amendments attempt to make provision to prevent that. At this stage I am asking the House to accept my amendment.

I used the example of Northern Ireland but the amendment does not confine it to Northern Ireland. In practice, that is where the problem would arise. There is a good deal of work done over the Border by Saorstát employers and Saorstát workers, and it would surely be a very unjust thing to say that a workman employed at his ordinary employment outside the Saorstát over the Border should be precluded from getting compensation if he were injured by an accident. I do not think there is any argument required on the merits of the amendment. The only question is whether the objection that the Minister made is met by a later proposal which prevents the injured person getting compensation twice over.

I have the greatest sympathy with the idea that Senator Johnson has in mind, but I would suggest this consideration—is this the proper place to embody that idea? Is the insertion of this amendment relevant to the purpose of this particular sub-section? It seems to me that it in no way defines or clarifies the definition of the work. It defines the area where the workman may operate, but it seems to me that this is not the appropriate place to insert the idea or the principle that Senator Johnson is aiming at, and for that reason I do not agree with the amendment.

It seems to me that Senator Johnson's amendment cannot be properly discussed except we take at the same time amendment 12 in the name of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries, amendment 10 in the name of Senator Milroy, and amendment 38 in the name of Senator Johnson, because they all deal precisely with the same matter. The question was discussed both in the Dáil and here whether it was possible by legislation in this country to provide compensation for workmen injured as a result of an accident which took place outside this country. I stressed the view, which I still hold, that difficulties associated with the payment of compensation in respect of accidents arising outside the jurisdiction of Saorstát Eireann can best be solved by agreements or conventions with other countries——

On a point of order, is the Minister going to pre-discuss these other amendments to which he alluded?

Cathaoirleach

Not at the moment.

Is he going to cover the whole ground?

Cathaoirleach

It is better to allow the Minister to develop his argument at the moment.

I was expressing the view that difficulties arising out of the fact that a workman might go from Saorstát Eireann to undertake work in Northern Ireland for an employer resident in Saorstát Eireann, can best be solved by the making of agreements of the kind contemplated by the International Labour Office Conference. The Conference prepared a Convention embodying a draft agreement of the type that might be concluded. It is true that in the absence of power to enter into agreements none has been made, but the power to enter into such agreements is conferred by this Bill. With the passage of the Bill it would be the aim of the Government to make them. Various examples of possible difficulties were advanced in the Dáil and here and in consequence of the cases cited I have made an attempt to frame an amendment which will cover some of the types of cases that have been indicated. It is not possible by one amendment to cover all the cases that have been advanced. A Saorstát employer might take a Saorstát worker to perform work for him outside the jurisdiction of this State, say in Northern Ireland or Great Britain; or a motor car driver employed in the Free State might cross into Northern Ireland to reach another part of the Free State and might be injured in an accident in Northern Ireland; or a groom might be injured in an accident while conveying a horse to a racecourse in Great Britain. We have to cover the possibility of the workman getting compensation in these cases. We are covering that possibility by the amendment No. 12 that is down in the name of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries. That amendment provides where a contract of service is made here, where the principal or the only place of business of the employer of such workman was in Saorstát Eireann, and such workman was normally employed in connection with the employer's trade or business in Saorstát Eireann, such accident shall for the purpose of the Act be deemed to have occurred in Saorstát Eireann. Consequently, the claim will arise here. That particular amendment, I submit, covers the only cases we can deal with by our law. The other cases to which reference has been made can only be covered satisfactorily by International Agreements of the kind suggested by the International Labour Office.

I quite appreciate the importance of the Minister's statement and the value of these amendments that are coming later. Having opened the ball, so to speak, I will ask the leave of the House to withdraw this amendment at this stage so that the Minister's statement can be replied to and the whole question discussed on the later amendments.

Amendment 1, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment 2:—

Section 5, sub-section (2). To delete all after the word "club" in line 8 down to the end of paragraph (b).

I think there is ample ground for moving this amendment. I do not want any representative of Labour to construe this amendment as being in any way adverse to the interests of any section of Labour. The subject-matter of the amendment, as the Minister knows, was discussed at considerable length in the Dáil and was referred to when the Second Reading of the Bill was taken in this House. The Minister made certain comments upon this proposal but I think he dealt with it in a very inadequate way. His arguments were very scant and unconvincing, in my opinion, when he was dealing with this matter.

There was one actual misstatement by the Minister in reference to myself on that occasion. I wish to take this opportunity, the first I have had, of correcting him. I was not present for the early part of the Minister's statement when he was concluding the discussion on the Second Reading, or I would have corrected him then. When I read the report I was startled to find he had attributed to me the astonishing statement that 90 per cent. of our casual labour was composed of people who were employed on works of charity. I never made any such foolish or uninformed statement. As a matter of fact, I was not in a position to state what was the percentage of casual labour employed on works of charity. I asked the Minister if he could supply us with any statistics bearing upon that matter, but he has not furnished us with them. What I did say was that if this sub-section I am proposing to delete is allowed to remain there will be a 90 per cent. risk that that same percentage of casual labour that may be employed on works of charity may lose that employment. I think that is not an unwarranted or an exaggerated statement.

There is a problem to which this sub-section has reference that has to be met and answered. I contend that it is not met and answered by the sub-section as it exists and I will admit that it will not be solved by the amendment that I am proposing; but this amendment would, I think, have the effect of keeping the subject-matter free from complication until further consideration has been given to the subject and a satisfactory solution arrived at. This is put in as a species of protection against accident in the case of a certain type of casual labour. I carefully followed the discussions and arguments without any feeling of bias and I think there is a great possibility that, if the sub-section is allowed to remain as it exists in the Bill, instead of being a protection against accident it may be a barrier against securing employment in the case of the people who will be affected; that is, the people who get odd jobs, not perhaps out of charity, but from those who have no regular necessity for the employment of odd-job men and who require occasional help and give the job to the first needy person who is competent to do it. That person, in the ordinary way, does not take precautions in the way of an insurance policy to cover the risk that it is sought to cover by this proposal. The result may be that if one employer of that type is involved in heavy penalties by reason of some accident, 90 per cent. of the others who similarly employ may desist from employing labour in the future.

There is one word in this section to which I would like to refer. Sub-section (2) reads:—"employed for the purposes of any work in or about the residence of his employer." What is the meaning of the word "about"? Suppose I arrive at a railway station with a heavy bag of luggage and I give that bag to someone to carry to my house and, on the doorstep, he slips and breaks his ankle. Is he about my house? I am his employer because he is still in my service until I have paid him off. Does he or does he not come within the meaning of this section? I say that you have in that particular word a cause of prolific litigation, with the possibility of antagonistic decisions being given on it when it is being construed by the courts.

I was also anxious to move the amendment because I wanted to give Senator Comyn an opportunity to enlarge upon an aspect of the matter which he raised on the Second Reading. I regret he is not here. I anticipated that there would be an amendment in his name dealing with this matter. I put it seriously to the Minister that the proposal to insure casual labour of this type is not effecting the purpose in view. It may have adverse results, particularly on the source of employment of a section of the unemployed. It may be a large or a moderate percentage, but at any rate I think that consideration ought to be borne in mind and between now and the Report Stage I think the Minister ought to give further consideration to it and see if it is wise to persist in this particular proposal or if it would not be a better way to secure the object he has in view to deal with the insurance of casual labour in a separate legislative proposal. I am not raising this matter from a Party point of view; it is not a Party matter. This is a matter of serious concern to a certain element whose interests are presumed to be protected here but who in reality may be led into a situation where their interests will radically suffer.

I appreciate some of the arguments that were used in the Dáil in favour of this amendment. It may have some effect in reducing the number of persons taken on casually by householders in respect to work in or about their houses; but I suggest to the Senator who has just sat down that he should consider this case. Let him consider, supposing his amendment were carried, how easy it would be for people who are employing workers, men or women, in or about their houses, not to employ them with any regularity at all, but to ensure that they shall always be casual. They would then never be covered by insurance; they would never be entitled to compensation in case of an accident.

There may be some minimisation of the amount of casual employment given of the kind the Senator speaks of, but the great balance of the advantage lies in the section as it stands. It will probably have the effect of very widely increasing the practice of insuring against losses by way of compensation and it will bring into the region of insurance the kind of workers who go into a house to do odd jobs, men and women not by any means regularly employed. It will cover the kind of day worker who comes in partly, as is suggested, out of commiseration, but who usually gives solid work for the pay he or she receives. We want to ensure that that kind of person shall be covered by insurance. By deleting this paragraph, as suggested by the Senator's amendment, you will deprive those people of the benefits to which the Workmen's Compensation Acts entitle them. I oppose the amendment proposed by Senator Milroy.

It strikes me that the way this will affect the ordinary person is through his insurance, and if existing rates will cover the liabilities involved under this Act I do not expect the employer will have very much cause to complain. Perhaps the Minister will inform us if he has been in consultation with the insurance companies to find out whether they are likely to make any alterations in comparison with what has previously been paid.

Senator Milroy said there were ample grounds for proposing this amendment, but he did not state them. He relied upon the old argument which has been used both here and in the Dáil, and that is that the inclusion of casual workers is going to prevent them getting employment in the future. I do not believe it. Presumably the deterrent would not operate only in respect of workers employed in or about the household of the employer. It would also operate against workers employed in or about the business of the employer. The fact is that the Workmen's Compensation Act has not prevented workers getting employment in industrial or semi-industrial pursuits, and I believe this is not likely to prevent them getting employment on household or semi-household work.

The Senator mentions that the assumption is that it is charity work. I do not think that is so. The fact is that the majority of such people are employed because the employer wants the work done. Senator Milroy asked if I could give him any statistical information as regards workers employed through motives of charity. It is obviously not possible to get these statistics. My estimate would be about .0001 per cent., and I would ask the Senator to work on that as a reliable estimate. The only reason why casual workers were excluded from the scope of the original Workmen's Compensation Acts was because of the possibility of fraud, and also because of the unknown nature of the liabilities which individuals might allow themselves to enter into, such as the person who employs a shoe-black to blacken his shoes or a person at a railway station to carry his bag. Quite obviously we cannot legislate to make an employer in such cases liable for accidents.

Is the Minister sure that he is not doing it?

I am quite certain that we are not. The aim should be to try and extend as widely as possible the classes of workers in respect of which this legislation will operate. So long as we are not proceeding to the point where an unreasonable and an unknown liability is being imposed upon individuals, or that the possibility of fraud does not exist to the extent that it is likely to become a public danger, then we can legislate with safety. It seems to me quite clear that we are quite safe in including within the terms of the Act, that is excluding from the definition of casual workers, persons who are employed for the purposes of any work in or about the residence of an employer.

Would the Minister define the meaning of the word "about"?

No. That is a matter which the courts will have to determine. I think if the Senator makes inquiries he will find that, arising out of the National Health Insurance Acts, a whole series of decided cases revolve around that term. It is, of course, true that the average householder can insure against all risks arising under this legislation for a very nominal fee indeed. I think it is not likely under any circumstances, unless there is a regular staff of fairly large dimensions employed, to exceed more than half a crown a year. I should say that in the majority of cases the fee charged would be less than that. I do not anticipate that there will be any increase in the insurance premium rates for this business. It was stated in the Dáil, and I think with some authority, that the insurance companies anticipated this legislation by increasing their rates, so that now, when the nature of the legislation is known, we can look for a reduction rather than a further increase in rates.

I would ask Senator Milroy to withdraw his amendment. I am of the opinion that any employer of labour to any great extent can have casual labour covered with his insurance company for a very small amount.

Sub-section (3) of the section seems to me to be very indefinite, and for that reason I would like to have some information from the Minister. Let me take a specific case. It is customary for people to have their windows cleaned by window cleaners. Would they come within the scope of this sub-section? In the case of most people the window cleaner just gets casual employment. He comes, perhaps, once a month to clean your windows. Would he come within the scope of the Bill? Would work of that nature be considered under the sub-section to be work of a casual kind?

Certainly.

In the case of an accident who would be liable? Would it be the person who employs him, or would it be the company that employs window cleaners?

I do not think that the issue raised by this amendment is one of very great importance. I have a certain amount of sympathy with the arguments used by Senator Milroy. If I thought there would be really serious difficulties in the way of insurance, I would certainly support the amendment, but I think the attitude of the average employer is that if he can do so at a reasonable rate he is very glad indeed that the people he employs, even casually, should be entitled to compensation. The only objection the employer will have is if the rate is such that he cannot afford it. Then he will not insure and will cease to employ people. In the case of a person who has a fairly large house and employs a number of persons he, almost certainly, will have a general householder's policy or some kind of special policy, but there are a number of people who do not employ any persons in connection with their houses and yet do give casual employment from time to time. They will not have any insurance policy. Unless there is a considerable amount of publicity there is undoubtedly the danger that they will be afraid to employ persons once this becomes law.

I do not like to question the figures given by the Minister, but I am a little doubtful about his two shillings or half-a-crown a year as the total amount of a policy. If the Minister's statement be correct it would, of course, be comparatively easy even for the poorest to have a policy covering themselves for a year. I think the real difficulty will arise, not in the case of people who employ two or three servants regularly, but as regards those who employ no one permanently. Quite a large number of people cannot afford regular servants, but they do give a considerable amount of employment throughout the year, when taken as a whole. There are many gardeners, for instance, who make quite a decent livelihood by doing a day's work here and there for a number of people and sometimes half a day's work for two people. They are able to earn a fairly decent wage while working that way from week to week, but they are casual as far as each employer is concerned. I am not quite sure that this thing has been given as much thought as it should have—I mean the actual wording—but at the same time I am not prepared to support the amendment as it stands.

I have no intention of pressing this amendment to a division. I am satisfied that the matter was important enough to have it ventilated here. At the same time, I think the Minister has treated the matter in a rather cavalier sort of fashion. He said there will be no difficulty at all as regards covering the risks, but Senator Douglas has drawn attention to a certain class of citizens who employ occasional labour—not, perhaps, to any great extent—and they may think that it would not warrant them in entering into an insurance policy against the risks that might possibly be involved. These may be rare cases. If an accident occurs in one of these particular cases the consequences may be rather serious for that class of labour, that is if one such citizen is mulcted heavily for compensation as a result of an accident. It may be that other citizens who give an odd day's work in the way Senator Douglas described may say "That finishes me, I am not going to burden myself with a risk of that kind." I do not think the Minister should dismiss those considerations so lightly or think that they are irrelevant. I do not wish to restrict the scope of the Bill or to exclude any section from the benefits of insurance. But as there seems to me to be an obvious defect in the Bill and an inaccurate grasp of the position, I think it is only right that it should be ventilated here and that the Minister should take serious notice of the views that have been expressed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment 3:—

Section 5, sub-section (2). After the word "house" in line 24 to insert the words "unless such person is bona fide in receipt of wages and is a workman within the meaning of this Act.”

Sub-section (2) of Section 5 deals with the exemptions of certain classes of persons from the scope of the Bill. In the main, I wish to say that I think the exemptions are reasonable, but in view of the definitions in Section 6, with regard to the relatives of a person living in the house of an employer, it is necessary that my amendment should be accepted. Section 6 in defining relations says: "The expression ‘member of the family' means wife or husband, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, step-father, step-mother, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, step-son, step-daughter, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister." My amendment deals with the case of a relative of an employer who lives in the house of an employer. He is a member of the family and a bona fide workman. The definition in Section 6 of the relative of an employer, and the wording of Section 5 presuppose that a step-son will always be a single person if he lives in the house of the employer. It is not unknown for a step-son to be a married man and to live in the house of his employer. Even though he is a relative he may have a wife and children. If an accident occurs to such a person, or if he dies as a result of an accident in the course of his work, he being employed by his stepfather, then under the terms of this Bill the widow or the orphans as the case may be will not receive a penny compensation.

Although I agree with the main provisions in Section 5 and the exemptions I think that in order to make the position reasonable and fair the Minister ought to accept my amendment. It may be argued that if the amendment is accepted it will open the door to fraud as against insurance companies. I expect that the Minister, when replying, will probably use that argument. That argument is met by the fact that an employer who has an insurance premium against workmen's compensation must have a wages book. Provision must always be made in that wages book to show that the amount of the premium paid is in proportion to the wages that are paid weekly, monthly or yearly. For that reason I would ask the Minister to accept the amendment. I think it is a reasonable one. We are endeavouring to meet every possible emergency that may arise under this Bill. The Minister, in his Second Reading speech, said the Bill was an endeavour to bring workmen's compensation law to a proper condition whereby the people who are entitled to be covered would be covered: that it was an endeavour to codify the existing law and bring it up-to-date. I think I have made a good case in support of the amendment, and I ask the Minister to accept it.

There is something in the case made by Senator Farren, but I am not quite satisfied that he has answered his own argument completely, with regard to the difficulties, particularly as the amendment stands. If a return is made to an insurance company annually it is made on the basis of the wages actually paid the previous year, and then an adjustment is made in the premium as soon as the total wages are known. As the amendment stands it would be comparatively easy not to return any of the members of the family if there were no accidents, but to claim afterwards that a wage had been paid. It is quite possible that a way might be found out of that, but there would have to be proof that wages were paid for six months before the accident. As the amendment stands it seems to me it would be definitely open to abuse. As far as the insurance companies are concerned, as long as they get premiums on the basis of the wages paid, there would seem to be no reason why they should not be perfectly satisfied to give cover. The real danger is that they would not get premiums on the basis of the wages paid and that owing to the wording of the Bill they could exclude relatives living in the house. If the Minister considered this matter I suggest that it would be better to postpone it to the Report Stage. There is something in the case made by Senator Farren as to possible hardship arising.

If Senator Douglas looks at the amendment he will see that it includes the words "unless such person is bona fide in receipt of wages.” There must be definite proof given of that, and that he “is a workman within the meaning of this Act.”

My point is that the wages for the week might simply be entered when the person would be bona fide in receipt of wages. The Senator and myself are in agreement. He does not want any more than I do, but I suggest, on the wording of the amendment, it would be possible that it would be resisted by the insurance companies and, I think, properly so.

Senator Douglas has made the case against the amendment very fairly. Nobody wants to do an injustice. If in fact a member of an employer's family residing in his dwelling is bona fide in receipt of wages, and is working for a living, one would like to see him or his dependents getting compensation in the event of an accident. But is it possible to provide for that and, at the same time, to close the door against all possible frauds that could arise? The Bill excludes from its scope a member of an employer's family dwelling in his house. Senator Farren wants to add the words “unless such person is bona fide in receipt of wages, and is a workman within the meaning of this Act.” If Senator Farren asks himself why he put in the word “bona fide” in the amendment he comes up against the difficulty. The word is not necessary from the drafting point of view. The Senator put the word in there because his mind told him that it would be almost impossible to prove in any one case whether a person was bona fide in receipt of wages, and a workman within the meaning of this Act. Take the average case of a cabinet maker working with his son, more or less in a sort of partnership in the business. They work together. If there is an insurance policy, and if the father or the son is injured there will almost certainly be a claim, on the grounds that the person injured was in receipt of wages and was a workman within the meaning of the Act. In that case, and in 99 cases out of 100 that will arise under this section, if it is amended as the Senator suggests, the dependent and the employer would be the same person. It would be a device whereby the employer would pay a small premium to an insurance company and get back from that company as a dependent a substantial sum in the event of an accident occurring to a member of the family who was covered. That is the difficulty.

The only argument against this amendment is that it opens the door to fraud. Undoubtedly it does, and no effective means to prevent fraud has yet been devised or suggested. If the Senator could produce some effective check so that only persons bona fide in receipt of wages and workmen within the meaning of the Act would be able to get compensation, in consequence of the amendment of the Bill in the manner suggested, then we could consider it. In the absence of that check I think it is safer to leave the Bill as it stands, and to let the exclusion operate, even though in rare cases it might possibly occasion injustice. Having regard to the fact that if a claim is made by a member of an employer's family, and that both reside in the same house it is merely a transfer of money from one member of a family to another member in the same household. The possibility of injustice is very slight, but the possibility of fraud is very great.

It is all very well for the Minister to argue that if the amendment is accepted it will open the door to fraud. He has not answered the case I put forward. Is it because certain sections of the Workmen's Compensation Acts open the door to fraud that the widows and orphans of genuinely employed persons are to be deprived of the compensation to which they would be ordinarily entitled?

From whom?

The employer.

Who will be a member of the family living in the same household.

He might be a step-son living there with his family. Surely it is not the experience that step-fathers are so fond of a step-son's family that they are prepared to provide for them. The law should provide for them. I am putting forward the case of a bona fide employee. If other people are to be deprived of the compensation to which they are entitled, such as a father and son in a joint partnership, I am not concerned. The ordinary employee who meets with an accident gets sickness benefit under the National Health Insurance Act because there would be stamped cards. I am concerned with the case of a man who might be incapacitated for life. Is he to suffer because the door would be open to fraud owing to the action of unscrupulous people? I do not want to open the door to fraud but I want justice for honest people. The Minister should consider the point. He should not debar cases such as I mentioned because we are afraid of dishonest people. I do not care if the Minister will insert words which will make it difficult to make fraudulent claims. If he does that I am prepared to accept them. What I want is proof that we are not going to legislate and to debar bona fide people getting compensation when they are entitled to it. I am prepared to leave the amendment over till the Report Stage so that we can talk it over. If that is not agreed to, I will put this amendment to a division, as I think these words should be in the Bill.

I should like to support the amendment and to put it to the Minister that everything he has said would apply with even greater force in the case of a nephew working in the same household. The nephew is covered and would not be an excepted person. If the danger of fraud is so great, surely it would be as unjust to include a nephew as a step-son. The Minister referred to the introduction of the words "bona fide.” Having read the debates in the Dáil, and having some knowledge of the whole case, we know that there is danger of fraud. The insurance companies know that there is a danger of fraud, and it may be desirable that special steps should be taken to impose upon the workman the onus of proving that he was in receipt of wages and was a workman within the meaning of the Act. That is not outside the competence of the Minister and his advisers in order to devise safeguards for the Bill. Certainly the Minister should accept the principle that where a relative is regularly in receipt of wages as a workman, when living in his employer's house he should be covered, and that the insurance companies should not be saved the responsibility of paying compensation in such a case. That is really what this means. It is important that we should have in mind throughout this discussion that the practice of insurance against risk is going to be greatly extended. I hope it will become universal, and eventually be made compulsory. We should assume that there is going to be a wide extension of the practice, and that we are really dealing with the risks of insurance companies. If the Minister would accept the principle of the amendment, in that case we could try to devise ways and means of preventing fraud. If the Minister agreed to that Senator Farren would be well advised to postpone further consideration of the amendment. There is no reason for excepting a step-son and not excepting a nephew.

Whatever Senator Johnson may think as to the growth of the practice of insurance against the liability that employers incur the fact is that the Bill puts the liability on the employer. Take the case of a father and son engaged in the business of cabinet making, boot repairing, or something of that kind, where the son is involved in an accident and is killed. The Senator wants to insist that the father should pay compensation to himself. That is the most likely case that will arise. The son may have dependents other than the father, but they are living in the same household. What advantage is it to the household if you make one member of it pay compensation to another member? It does not increase the wealth of the household or provide for the dependents of the person injured to any great extent, because all are members of the household and live together.

A man may have to depend on his grandfather for maintenance during his whole life.

If the grandfather has resources to pay compensation he will have resources to provide for his grandson.

Probably he has not the resources to pay compensation, but he has resources to pay the insurance premium.

I think a personal accident policy could be taken out by a relative or parent with an insurance company for 35/- yearly, and that that would cover not only in case of an accident connected with the business but, for instance, at football. One of the great dangers of fraud when dealing with relatives, to put an extreme case, is that an accident may happen at football, but that all the injured person has to do is to slide down the stairs where the workshop is and get compensation. I do not say that that would happen, but we have to take safeguards against fraud. I believe this matter could be met in the case of a parent by means of an accident policy, which would cost very little more than the ordinary employer would pay for insurance.

How the employer is going to provide against liability is a matter for himself. If there is no insurance, obviously it is going to make no difference within the household whether the employer or members of his family are paid compensation or not. If there is insurance you have the possibility of fraud, to which Senator Douglas referred, in every case, where a member of the household associated with the business is injured in any way. There is something in a claim against an insurance company, on the ground that a person was a bona fide workman, working for wages, and that the accident arose out of the employment. The circumstances are such that it is almost impossible to check up on that claim and to prove whether or not it was bona fide. The number of cases that are likely to arise is so small, and the number within that very small first number of cases in which the absence of this proposed amendment to the Bill is likely to cause hardship is so insignificant that there is no need for it, whereas, on the other hand, the opportunity for fraud is so great that the balance of argument is in favour of the Bill as it is. It is possible to contemplate a case in which hardship would result, but no clear example has been given.

It was mentioned in the course of the discussion that it does not appear clear at all that hardship will arise from the absence of this provision. A typical case is that which I mentioned, a father and son engaged in the boot trade or some such enterprise. In such case it is no advantage to anybody to have that theoretical liability of paying compensation imposed on one of the persons concerned if the other receives an injury.

Surely the Minister does not suggest that I am stating that the step-son is a nearer relative to the employer than his nephew? The nephew is a blood relative but the Bill excludes the step-son, his wife and children. I do not at all agree with the line the Minister has taken. He has taken the line that we must protect the insurance companies. My experience, after 25 years as a trade union official, is that the insurance companies are well able to look after themselves. My duty is to look after, if I possibly can, the worker who is injured and incapacitated from work or who may leave a widow and orphans unprovided for. For these reasons, I am afraid I shall have to ask the House to divide on this amendment.

Before the House votes upon this amendment I think we ought to know if there is any real difference in principle between the Minister and Senator Farren. What the Minister said is, in my opinion, very reasonable. He does not want to open the door to fraud. He does not want sons and daughters who happen to be injured in an accident in their own house coming into court and saying: "We were employed by our father at so much a week; the father was insured and we demand compensation." The Minister is quite right, I think, in contending that such a state of affairs is not desirable. On the other hand, Senator Farren says: Suppose such a person is bona fide in receipt of wages and is a workman he is entitled to compensation. I do not know any case, in my experience in the country, where a son or daughter is in receipt of wages from the father. There may be cases in some parts of the country where the son is married and has a family and still resides in the old homestead. There are cases of that kind in Kerry where people marry young and where the young wife comes into the farmhouse with the father-in-law and mother-in-law and they live very happily together. Kerry people are very good humoured people and they find it easy to live together. But I never knew of a case in which wages were paid by the old couple to the young couple in the house.

Would the Senator read Section 6 of the Bill?

I have read it. I wonder whether the point at issue between Senator Farren and the Minister could not be solved by a definition of the word "family"—that is, "member of the family." That could be limited to sons and daughters or it might be made to read "any member of the household." I was once in the State of Missouri and there I was talking to a manumitted slave and he regarded himself as a member of his employer's family. He talked of "our motor car, our house," and all the rest of it. There is no difference, in principle, between the Minister, who brought in this very splendid measure, and Senator Farren. I think their difference could be solved if we simply determined who might be members of the family living in the house.

Question put.
The Committee divided, Tá, 10; Níl, 25.

  • Cummins, William.
  • Farren, Thomas.
  • Foran, Thomas.
  • Johnson, Thomas.
  • McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
  • O'Connor, Joseph.
  • O'Farrell, John T.
  • Parkinson, James J.
  • Staines, Michael.
  • Toal, Thomas.

Níl

  • Bellingham, Sir Edward.
  • Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
  • Browne, Miss Kathleen.
  • Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
  • Comyn, K.C., Michael.
  • Connolly, Joseph.
  • Costello, Mrs.
  • Counihan, John C.
  • MacKean, James.
  • Moore, Colonel.
  • O'Hanlon, M.F.
  • O'Rourke, Brian.
  • Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
  • Douglas, James G.
  • Dowdall, J.C.
  • Fanning, Michael.
  • Griffith, Sir John Purser.
  • Guinness, Henry S.
  • Hickie, Major-General Sir William.
  • Keane, Sir John.
  • Kennedy, Cornelius.
  • Quirke, William.
  • Robinson, David L.
  • Robinson, Séumas.
  • Wilson, Richard.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Farren and Johnson; Níl: Senators S. Robinson and Comyn.
Amendment declared lost.
Section 5 agreed to.
SECTION 6.
In this Act the expression "member of the family" means wife or husband, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, step-father, step-mother, son, daughter, grandson, granddaughter, step-son, stepdaughter, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister.

I move amendment 4:—

Section 6. To add at the end of the section the words "or a person who stands in loco parentis to the workman or to whom the workman stands in loco parentis, whether related to him by consanguinity or not so related.”

This section deals with the definition of a family or member of a family. I want to bring in the case of the adopted child. The Minister has an amendment down which goes a long way to cover the point that I am trying to have embodied in the Bill but it misses recognising the fact that the parent of the adopted child may be dependent on that adopted child and, therefore, the Minister's amendment will leave out a very important factor. I think it is desirable that the inclusion should cover not merely a child but also the parent of that child who had been adopted. The principle is the same in both amendment but for the fact that my amendment does cover that wider field and brings in the person who may be the most needy in such a case.

Senator Johnson's objective and my objective are the same. A case was made for the inclusion in Section 7 as members of the family, of adopted children, and that case is quite good. It is, in fact, unanswerable. There is, of course, the particular difficulty that there is no machinery for the adoption of children in this State and in consequence, we have to get some definition which would have the same effect or achieve the same end while, at the same time, avoiding difficulties that may arise. I think that Senator Johnson's amendment does not avoid those difficulties because there appears to me to be an obligation imposed by the amendment on a workman to prove that he had placed himself in loco parentis to the injured workman or that the injured workman stood in loco parentis to the applicant, and that might be a matter of considerable difficulty. In legislation of this kind, it is very desirable that we should avoid phraseology which would leave the way open to doubt and to protracted legal arguments in disputed cases and, consequently, I thought it better to devise a form of words which would be less open to different construction than that suggested by Senator Johnson or the other form suggested in the Dáil when this matter was under discussion there.

The Ministerial amendment No. 5 proposes to include amongst the dependants of injured workmen any person under 15 years of age who resided in the same household and was wholly dependent on the earnings of the workman. That is something which is quite easy of proof, and the only question that arises for the consideration of the court in any case is the question of fact as to whether the dependant was residing in the household of the workman and dependent on his earnings. The phraseology suggested by Senator Johnson would, however, bring in another question— the question of whether the workman stood in loco parentis to the person claiming or the person injured stood in loco parentis to the workman. I submit, having given this matter very careful consideration, that the nearest we can get to meeting the case which was made and which we are anxious to meet, is the phraseology suggested in amendment No. 5. The other phrase is one that I should be very much afraid of in so far as it might involve considerations that do not appear obvious at first sight and might, in fact, be defeated by the difficulty of proving the status suggested in the words there.

The Minister, apparently, has not provided for the case stated by Senator Johnson. Take the case of a workman who adopts a child or takes a child into his house. In 20 or 30 years time, the child becomes a wage-earner and the man who adopted him or took him into his house is no longer able to work but is dependent on the workman, the child he took in 20 years before. That is a case which ought, I think, be dealt with and although I do not exactly agree with Senator Johnson's use of the Latin phrase in loco parentis I think the Minister might give an opportunity on Report of making some variation in that so as to meet the case.

What I suggest is that if amendment No. 5 is inserted now, we could consider on Report Stage possible variations of the phraseology there used to include the other case he has mentioned.

Would the Minister consider, when he is investigating the other matters on Report Stage, the raising of the age of 15 to the age of 20?

We could possibly discuss even the elimination of the age altogether.

Very good.

I cannot argue the legal question but I will inform Senator Comyn and the Minister that this phraseology is taken out of existing Acts of Parliament in other countries and that is why the Latin phrase is used. It is, I understand, a very well recognised term and probably when Senator Comyn has had longer experience at the Bar, he will recognise it. The question raised by the Minister is on the next section and if the Minister will leave his mind open as to modification of the amendment he is now putting forward, it might be acceptable and on that understanding, I beg to withdraw amendment No. 4.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
(1) In this Act the word "dependants" means such of the members of the family of a workman as were wholly or in part dependent on the earnings of such workman at the time of his death, or would but for the incapacity due to the accident which resulted in such workman's death have been so dependent, and where a workman being the parent or grandparent of an illegitimate child leaves such a child so dependent on his earnings or, being an illegitimate child, leaves a parent or grandparent so dependent upon his earnings, shall include such illegitimate child and parent or grandparent respectively.
(2) In this Act the expression "adult dependant" when used in relation to a deceased workman means a dependant of such workman who is not under the age of 15 at the date of the death of such workman.
(3) In this Act the expression "juvenile dependant" when used in relation to a deceased workman means a dependant of such workman who is under the age of 15 at the date of the death of such workman.
(4) A person shall not for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be a partial dependant of another person unless he was dependent partially on contributions from that other person for the provision of the ordinary necessaries of life suitable for persons in his class and position.

I formally move amendment No. 5:—

Section 7, sub-section (3). To add at the end of the sub-section the words "and includes a person, other than a dependant of such workman within the meaning of sub-section (1) of this section, who is under the age of 15 at the date of the death of such workman and who was resident with such workman and wholly dependent on his earnings at the said date."

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 6:—

Section 7, sub-section (4). To delete all after the word "necessaries" in line 64 down to the end of the sub-section and to substitute therefor the words "which expression shall be deemed to include necessary provision for old age, sickness, infirmity, funeral expenses and other provisions of a like nature by insurance or otherwise."

The amendment which appears next on the Paper, dealing with the question of insurance, partly covers this amendment of mine. This question gave rise to a considerable amount of discussion in the other House, and I need not go over the ground that was covered there, except to say that the law with regard to the question of dependency is being altered in this section and a departure is being made from the custom that has obtained for the last 33 years. Without going very fully into the matter, I would agree that if the Minister would accept the deletion of all after the word "necessaries" in sub-section (4), and the amendment to be moved by the Minister is accepted, the position so far as I am concerned would be met.

I do not think the Senator quite appreciates what the effect of the suggestion he has made would be. The deletion of the words "suitable for persons in his class or position" would be restrictive and would have the effect, in my opinion, of confining the provision to be made to the ordinary necessaries of life, without regard to the class or position of the person injured. The effect of the words "suitable for persons in his class or position" has been to increase the amount of compensation payable, and not to confine it merely to the supply of food and clothing and other necessaries essential to maintain life, but to secure a continuation of the provision of these necessaries on the same scale on which they had been provided when the workman was earning and contributing to the family expenses. The deletion of these words would, therefore, have an entirely different effect from what the Senator contemplates, and I would draw his attention to the fact that in other countries, where similar phraseology has been embodied in legislation, the interpretation put upon it by the courts has been such as to increase the amount of compensation.

When the matter was being considered originally it was thought that the phrase was sufficiently wide to cover the case of insurance provision. One can contemplate the case of a family, the head of which has taken out an insurance policy on his life with the intention of providing a sum of money on his death which will secure his family against hardship. The possibility of maintaining that insurance and meeting the premiums on it may arise from the contributions to the family income by the members of the family, the sons or daughters of the head of the household. In the event of the death by accident of one of the earning members of the family, the ability of the head of the household to continue the premiums and to maintain the insurance may be ended or, at any rate, might be considerably lessened. Consequently it was felt that family expenditure upon insurance of that kind would be covered by the phrase. In Great Britain, where a similar phrase exists in the legislation there, a decision upon a test case was given which excluded such payments in respect of insurance from the calculations of the amount required to provide the ordinary necessaries of life suitable for the person's class and position.

Could the Minister give us any idea when that judgment was delivered?

It was somewhere about two or three years ago. I shall get the reference shortly. Arising out of that, I thought it was desirable that we should here specifically enact, for the purposes of the sub-section, that insurance should be deemed to be one of the necessaries of life. The other matters mentioned in Senator Farren's amendment, old age, sickness, infirmity, funeral expenses and the like, are, in a sense, covered already, since there is compulsory State insurance against sickness and there is State provision against old age. Apart from that there is the undesirability of having general phrases, which are possibly open to various interpretations. It is for that reason we could not accept such wording as "of a like nature."

The amendment of the Minister for Lands covers these matters.

Then, I think, we have in fact met the only difficulty that has arisen in connection with the interpretation of this section. The aim is to provide that where a worker is killed at his work or so injured as to be incapable of earning his livelihood, compensation shall be paid to those persons dependent on him in such manner and to such amount as will provide for these persons the necessaries of life suitable to their class and position. In addition to that, the phrase, as in fact it has been interpreted in the courts of other countries, in Great Britain and in the United States, means that the compensation must be adequate to provide the necessaries of life in similar volume and of a similar standard as these persons previously enjoyed. We are merely providing against the possibility of the courts here being bound to exclude insurance contributions. Because of that decision in Great Britain we are specifically bringing in insurance contributions by amendment No. 7.

I think the issue really is as to whether the Minister's interpretation of the effect of these last few words, "suitable for persons in his class and position," is to limit or to extend the meaning of the section. I have been led to understand that the provision in the earlier Act, which spoke of the "ordinary necessaries of life," was interpreted in the courts in Britain as having the wider meaning, and that these latter words were limiting it. If, as the Minister says, these latter words have been lately interpreted as having the wider interpretation, that would meet our case. It would meet Senator Farren's amendment and, for the time being, at any rate, I can only accept the Minister's word and suggest to the Senator that he should withdraw the amendment.

I can refer the Senator to a number of decided cases. I do not want to go into them at too great a length. There is, first, the case of Peart v. Bolckow, Vaughan and Company, Ltd., decided in the year 1925. The father claimed compensation as part dependant of his son, aged 14. The father earned £3 4s. 0d. per week, his eldest son 20/-, and the deceased 15/3. The mother and another son contributed nothing to the family funds. The father had a free house and coal. The arbitrator, applying his own knowledge of local conditions to the evidence, found, as a fact, that, after deducting the cost of maintenance of the decreased, there was a balance available for the benefit of the family fund, to be expended upon necessaries suitable to the class and position of the applicant. He awarded £50 after taking into account the probability that the earnings of the deceased would have increased if he had lived, and on the grounds that partial dependency had been proved. There is a long list of cases quoted here, all of which make it quite clear that the interpretation put upon that phrase has been to increase the amount of compensation over and above what would be otherwise regarded as required for the ordinary necessaries of life.

In view of what the Minister has said, I desire to withdraw the amendment. I was afraid the words of the section were rather double-edged, and I still think it may be open to that interpretation, but, in view of the next amendment in the name of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 7:—

Section 7. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(5) For the purposes of the immediately preceding sub-section insurance shall be deemed to be one of the ordinary necessaries of life.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 8.

I move amendment No. 8:—

Section 8. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(5) Where a person is employed by the owners of a ship which is not registered in Saorstát Eireann under the Merchant Shipping Acts, the agent of such owners shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be the employer of such workman.

The necessity for this amendment arises out of the fact that cases have occurred in which Irish workmen engaged by the master of a ship have been unable to recover compensation to which they were entitled. The owners of the ship might have no place of business in the State, and the ship might have left port before a judgment of the court could be executed or before a claim under the Act could be made. The amendment is designed to provide that in such cases the agent of the owners shall be made liable for any compensation due to the worker.

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 9.

I move amendment No. 9:—

Section 9. To add at the end of the section the words "and where a person is employed by a local or other public authority he shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be engaged under a contract of service with such local or public authority, whether the contract is determinable by such local or other public authority or otherwise.

This section provides that the exercise of the powers and duties of a local authority or of a public authority shall be treated as the trade or business of such authority. A question of importance has arisen as to what the position of an employee of a public authority is under this Bill—a person working on behalf of a public authority whose employment is not at the discretion of the local authority but at the discretion of another authority. A local authority, for instance, will appoint certain of its staff but the ultimate discretion as to the appointment rests with the Minister for Local Government in the same way as the dismissal of such person. There have been questions in the courts and, in some cases, it has been decided that the important element is the power of dismissal. I want to make sure that there is no doubt as to the liability of the effective employer, that is, the public authority, in respect to the compensation due and payable by that authority in respect of a workman who is injured. Therefore, I am proposing to add at the end of the section—"and where a person is employed by a local or other public authority he shall for the purpose of this Act be deemed to be engaged under a contract of service with such local or public authority, whether the contract is determinable by such local or other public authority or otherwise." The issue is as to whether the contract of service is one made between the local authority and the individual. That is one class of case.

There is another class of case which might, perhaps, be argued on this amendment though I am not quite sure that it is the most appropriate place to argue it. It is in respect of men working for a public authority under relief grants of one kind or another, as to whether they are covered under this Workmen's Compensation Act. In one case certainly the Courts have decided that such a person was not employed under a contract of service, and when he was injured in the course of his work, he was refused compensation. He had been employed by a local authority. That is to say, certain relief was given to him on condition that he did a certain amount of work. He was injured in doing that work and he applied for compensation. The case went to the Courts and he was refused compensation on the grounds that he was not employed within the meaning of any of these Acts. There is another class of work of a relief kind, such as work being done by public authorities or under the guidance of a public authority's official, apparently on behalf of that local authority, but really on behalf of the Minister responsible for such works. I want to make quite sure that in all these classes of cases the workmen will be covered in respect of compensation for accidents. That is the purpose of the amendment. I am not quite sure whether it covers all these classes but the problem might be discussed on this amendment and such other modifications might be made as would seem to be necessary after having heard the Minister on the matter. We know the difficulty that has arisen in regard to the employment of men on public works and their being covered or not covered by the Unemployment Insurance Acts. That is not quite on all fours with these cases but it gives an indication of the kind of difficulty that has to be guarded against. It is important that in this Bill we should make all provision for the removal of doubt on such questions. That is the purpose of the amendment.

I do not see how any difficulty could arise in the case of workers employed on relief work. They are employed by the local authority, the Board of Works, the Land Commission or by a contractor under one or other of these bodies. In each case, of course, the employer is liable for compensation. There may be some peculiar type of case in which doubt as to the actual employer might be created, but I cannot contemplate it. I do not think reference to the question that arose in connection with the Unemployment Insurance Act clarifies the position. The only question at issue there was whether a certain class of work, accommodation road work and the like, was work in connection with agriculture or not. It was held to be work in connection with agriculture and consequently, that these workers were not insurable under the Unemployment Insurance Act, but, in my opinion, there was no question whatever that the employers were liable, or that the workers were employed by a definite authority who was liable, for any compensation claim arising under the Workmen's Compensation Acts.

There is, however, a case to be met arising out of Senator Johnson's amendment. A doubt has been created as to whether there is in fact a contract of service between the local authority and some of its employees, having regard to the fact that a local authority cannot dismiss certain employees without the sanction of the Minister for Local Government. I do not think there can be many such cases because the sanction of the Minister for Local Government is not usually required in the case of manual workers. This Bill, of course, only refers to persons whose remuneration does not exceed £350 a year or who are engaged by way of manual labour. However, as such cases may exist, I am prepared to have an amendment of the kind suggested by Senator Johnson inserted to make it quite clear that even though the sanction of the Minister may be required to dismiss, the local authority will be deemed to be the employer, that a contract of service exists and to make sure that a worker will be entitled to claim compensation if injured in the course of his employment.

The Minister has met the point more particularly covered by the amendment. I would draw his attention to and ask him to look into a case where two or three years ago the County Wexford Board of Health and Public Assistance employed certain men for one or two days in the week and paid them a certain sum by way of relief. The condition of getting the relief, I think, was the employment at certain work. In this case the men were engaged in pulling down buildings and a man met with an accident in the course of that operation. His name was John Brown, Bride Street, Wexford. His case went to the court and the judge decided that not only was he not entitled to compensation, but that the Board was not entitled to insure the workers so engaged. That covers the unemployment insurance. We are now dealing with compensation. If that is the law under the present statutes, it is not remedied by this Bill. If it is the law in that particular case, I suggest that it is very likely to be the law in a much larger number of cases or a wider scope of cases. I would ask the Minister to look into that aspect of the effects of the Bill and agree to amend it so that that kind of person will be brought under the operation of the Act.

I shall be glad to look up that case and find out what happened. There is no question that the exercise and performance of the powers and duties of a local or other public authority shall for the purposes of this Act be treated as the trade or business of such authority.

That was the law when the case was decided.

If the local authority had the power and the duty to pull down those buildings, then for the purposes of the Act the workers were employed for the purpose of the local authority's trade or business and consequently compensation would be payable. However, I shall look up the particular case the Senator referred to.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 9 to 14, inclusive, put and agreed to.
SECTION 15.
(1) If in any employment personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment is caused to a workman, his employer shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be liable to pay compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(2) Where an accident results in the death or serious and permanent disablement of a workman, such accident shall for the purpose of this Act be deemed to arise out of and in the course of his employment notwithstanding the fact that such workman was at the time when such accident happened acting in contravention of any statutory or other regulation applicable to his employment, or of any orders given by or on behalf of his employer, or that he was acting without instructions from his employer, if such act was done by such workman for the purpose of and in connection with his employer's trade or business.

Before I move my amendment No. 10 I should like to ask if, in accordance with the idea suggested by the Minister, it would not be possible to discuss amendments 10 and 12 together or to advert to amendment 12 when moving this, because they both bear on the same matter and if, for example, my amendment was carried, the discussion of amendment 12 could not take place. It would be ridiculous to discuss it if my amendment is carried. I think it is desirable to have the amendments discussed before a decision is taken.

Cathaoirleach

That might be done.

I suggest that amendment 12 covers Senator Milroy's amendment in full.

That may be your opinion, but I doubt if it is mine. I should like to know whether it would be in order to advert to amendment 12.

Cathaoirleach

Certainly.

I move amendment 10.

Section 15, sub-section (1). After the word "accident" in line 17 to insert the words "within Saorstát Eireann or, in the case of a workman who in the course of his employment enters any part within the area of the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, within such area."

I think my advertence to amendment 12 will be rather frequent. I note that in amendment 12 there is a very definite departure on the part of the Minister from his original attitude on the matter. The basic idea behind those who have urged the Minister, both in the Dáil and the Seanad, is this, that where an injured workman is a Free State national employed by a Free State national, whose assets and business are mainly in the Free State, that person shall be able to sue his employer in the Free State Courts. The Minister originally, as far as I can follow his argument, resisted that point of view and contended that if the accident occurred outside the area of jurisdiction of the Free State that procedure could not hold unless by way of an international convention. It is very difficult to see how the Minister can regard that argument as tenable; how he can regard it as improper or a breach of proper procedure for an injured person who is a national, and who has a contract made in the Free State with his employer, who is a Free State national, to sue his employer in a Free State Court.

In the Seanad, on the Second Reading, the Minister admitted that there were certain cases which should be dealt with. He referred to the case of a chauffeur driving his employer from one part of the Free State to another and having to pass through the Six-County area, and an accident occurring within the Six-County area. He also referred to a man being sent to Liverpool with a horse by a Free State employer and suffering injury, in Liverpool. But he went on to say:—

"On the more general type of case where an Irish Free State contractor undertakes to build a house or a bridge in Northern Ireland or in Great Britain, and brings in Free State workers and carpenters, that cannot be satisfactorily dealt with otherwise than by an international arrangement of the type which the International Labour Office Conference and the Inter-Departmental Committee have recommended."

I cannot follow that kind of reasoning. Once these things are there, that the employer is a Free State national, that his business and assets are in the Free State, that the employee is a Free State national and that the contract is entered into in the Free State, I see no impediment whatever to the case being tried in the Free State Courts. I see no necessity for such an international convention for that.

The Minister argued to-day that the amendment tabled by the Government covers the points that can in reason be met, the points that he cited in his speech, such as the case of the chauffeur and the case of the stable boy. I say that is not meeting the case. This amendment presented by the Government is not acceptable even from the point of view that the Minister has ventilated. There are four separate clauses in this proposed new sub-section all of which hang together, each of which governs and affects the other and the absence of the conditions postulated in each cancels the rest. There is one phrase in clause (d) which, like the word that I queried the meaning of in the previous amendment, requires clarifying and some kind of precise definition before we can understand how far this amendment, even if carried, will be operative. Clause (d) states:—

(d) such workman was at the said date normally employed in connection with the employer's trade or business in Saorstát Eireann.

I ask the Minister to pay specific attention to this point. What is the meaning of "normally employed"? I shall take a suppositious case that is probably typical of what has been behind the demand for some provision to deal with this. I shall take the case of a farmer on the Border who has, we will say, 100 acres on the Free State side, and a smaller number, say 40 acres, on the northern side of the Border. He has an employee who is occupied for part of his time on the 100 acres in the south and for another part of his time on the 40 acres in the north. He is living with his employer, the farmhouse being located on the south side of the Border. He makes a contract with his employer in the house which is on the south side. During his work on the 40 acres on the north side of the Border he meets with an accident and the point is, when he meets with an accident on the north side of the Border, can he be considered to be normally employed in the trade or business of his employer in Saorstát Eireann? I have not a specific case in my mind, but that is a case which is likely to happen along the Border which covers a very long stretch of territory. It seems to me that the phrase "normally employed" is so loose that it would be very difficult to construe. Here we have the case of a Free State national, employed by a Free State national whose main business is in the Free State, sent across the Border to do some work. In the course of his employment across the Border he meets with an accident. The Minister's contention is that, without the aid of an international convention, it is impossible for the injured person to recover compensation from his employer. I say that that can hardly be put forward as a seriously-considered proposition. Even if it were, then you have that phrase "normally employed," which I doubt if the Minister can define here. I very much doubt if any judge in any court could define what is the meaning to be attached to that phrase "normally employed."

If accidents occur under such circumstances, this provision is likely to lead to friction and to futile and expensive litigation. I press on the Minister the wisdom of giving serious attention to that. The Minister described an amendment which was discussed a few moments ago as "too restrictive." I consider that the wording of this provision is too restrictive. Each condition is bound up with several other conditions. If each of these several conditions is not complied with, there is no case for compensation in the Free State courts. It is like a house with a false front and several doors. Before you can get into the house it is necessary to open each of the doors. If one will not open you are precluded from entering by any of the others.

I put another suppositious case. One can only argue by assumptions on this question. We have in the Saorstát a road making company which used to tender—I do not know whether they do so now or not—for contracts in Northern Ireland. This is a Saorstát company. If that company secured a contract in Northern Ireland, if it brought its employees from the Saorstát to work there, and an accident occurred to one of these Saorstát nationals while working, would he be precluded from suing in the Saorstát courts for compensation? On the theory of the Minister, he would. If that theory holds good, it is equivalent to saying that the Saorstát has no jurisdiction over its own nationals. My own amendment endeavours to put into language the position I am trying to present—the right of a Saorstát national, injured, in the course of employment by another Saorstát national, within the jurisdiction of the Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to sue for compensation in the Saorstát courts. There is an assertion here of the authority of our courts. We have had resistance to the idea of the Privy Council overruling the decisions of our courts here. I cannot see why the same tenacity of assertion of the supreme jurisdiction of our courts over our own nationals should not be maintained. The Minister smiles. I do not suppose he shares my point of view, but if he digests my argument as I have digested some of his immature statesmanship, as expounded in his speeches, he will begin to realise that there is a good deal more in it than he assumes at the moment.

One other argument and I shall conclude. One of the principal contentions upon which the Minister based resistance to the proposal embodied in my amendment was that there would be a possibility or danger of double compensation. In a later amendment, Senator Johnson has endeavoured to meet that. In amendment No. 11, I have endeavoured to prevent any Free State national from recovering double compensation for an accident. That would be more or less consequential on No. 10. There is no necessity for apprehension on that point. It is quite possible to embody in this Bill, either by means of the amendment I have suggested or in language similar to that put forward by Senator Johnson— the simpler the better—a provision that will guard against any such danger. What I do urge is that we should not have embodied in the Bill something which, on the face of it, is presented as a safeguard for certain parties interested in insurance, but which, in effect, is a delusion—which is so framed that it would be only by a miracle that anyone could recover damages. The clauses of the sub-section are so rigidly linked together as to prevent their operating. They resemble a clock which is wound up so tightly that it stops. I am afraid that that would be the case in this instance. I am moving my own amendment and resisting the amendment of the Minister when it comes forward.

I can assure Senator Milroy that however tenaciously we may seek to assert the supremacy of our courts in the Saorstát, we have not yet put forward a claim to establish their supremacy in Great Britain. I want the Senator to grasp that. The essential purpose of this Bill is to provide compensation for accidents to workers when the accident occurs in Saorstát Eireann. There is legislation in Great Britain and Northern Ireland to provide compensation for accidents to workers when these accidents occur within those territories. The only case where difficulty may arise in the absence of international arrangement is where, the accident occurring in the territory of one State, the claim cannot be successfully pursued because the employer has no assets or has removed his assets from that territory. That is the case we are trying to cover. The border farmer does not come into this question at all. If the farmer has forty acres in Northern Ireland and the worker is injured in Northern Ireland, he can proceed against the farmer in Northern Ireland and, because of the forty acres, can make good any judgment he gets. If the farmer had no farm in Northern Ireland and if the worker had been sent into Northern Ireland merely to purchase materials then, if an accident occurred to him in Northern Ireland, he might not be able successfully to assert his claims in the Northern courts or to make good any judgment he got unless we had in this Bill some such provision as we are proposing to insert in amendment 12, which provides that, in special circumstances, the accident shall be deemed to have occurred in the Saorstát.

There are many cases in which difficulties may arise in the absence of an international convention. Senator Milroy appeared to think that I was putting forward some fantastic argument when I said that the easiest way of solving these difficult cases would be by securing such an international agreement. I am supported in that attitude not merely by the InterDepartmental Commission established by our predecessors, which reported in 1926; not merely by those who appeared before that Commission and who are recognised as the foremost authorities on workmen's compensation law in this country but by the combined authorities of the world who met in international conference in Geneva and submitted recommendations to all the Governments of the world One of these recommendations was that national legislation should be designed to provide compensation within the national territory and that international agreements should be made to cover all other cases. I could multiply by a hundred the cases in which difficulty would arise in the absence of agreement. A Northern contractor comes in here and employs Free State nationals. He is gone out of this State, taking his assets with him, before an injured Saorstát worker can establish his case for compensation. We cannot pursue that Northern employer back to his place of business and collect the compensation on his assets there without an international convention and vice versa. There is, however, the case of the worker employed normally in connection with the employer's business in the Saorstát in pursuance of a contract of service made in the Saorstát. That worker is injured in the course of employment outside the Saorstát. We are covering that case by amendment 12 and that is the only case we can cover by our law. That is not confined, in any sense, to Saorstát nationals. In accordance with the international convention to which we have adhered, we are giving to foreigners in our territory exactly the same rights as we are giving to our own nationals. The British Government has done the same and the Northern Ireland Government has done the same. Most of the countries of the world have subscribed to that convention and in their own legislation they are giving to all workers, no matter what their nationality, the same rights in their territory, if injured, as they are giving to their own nationals. It is not necessary to be a Saorstát national at all. The case could be one of a foreign employer employing a foreign worker and the same claim to compensation would arise. It is merely necessary to have a contract of service made in Saorstát Eireann, that the employer's principal place of business be in the Saorstát, and that the injured workman was normally employed in connection with the employer's business. The new sub-section I propose to add would apply there also. You cannot do more than that. Otherwise, you are legislating, not for the Saorstát, but for other countries, and you cannot make your legislation effective unless the other countries are agreeable. There will be no difficulty in securing international agreement of the kind recommended by the International Labour Office. The British Government and a number of other Governments have committed themselves to entering into these arrangements, and our only trouble has been that the Government had no power to make these arrangements. It is getting power by this legislation.

The official amendment which appears on the paper—No. 12—goes much further than Senator Milroy suggests. It covers every case which it is possible to cover by our own law and it covers them irrespective of whether the accident took place in Northern Ireland, Great Britain or any other country. The Senator's amendment is confined to Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The official amendment operates in respect of accidents no matter where they occur. It is a common practice for insurance companies to contract with employers to pay to employees taken by them outside the jurisdiction of the State compensation in respect of injury at the same rate as they would receive if the accident took place at home. This practice does not obtain solely in connection with Saorstát employers taking contracts in Northern Ireland. It is the practice of big contracting firms in Great Britain to take their workmen to different parts of the world to do contracting work. In order that they might have no difficulty in getting workers to go, having regard to the fact that the rate of compensation payable in these countries would be less than the amount payable in Great Britain, this practice is resorted to. Irrespective of the law, the practice is for the insurance companies to undertake, subject to the payment of a premium, to pay to these workers compensation at the rate they would have been entitled to if an accident occurred in Great Britain, no matter where the accident takes place and no matter what the maximum provisions under the local law would be. That is the excess of the legislation.

It is hoped to make it a matter of international arrangement and that was the purport of the International Labour Office Conference. Already considerable progress is made and a number of agreements have been entered into between the various countries providing for arrangements of that kind. I want to repeat that the only case we can provide for is the case where the employer's principal place of business is in the Saorstát, where the contract of service is made here, where the worker is normally employed in connection with the business and where the accident occurs outside.

I would also like Senators to keep in mind that in these matters one of the difficulties is to secure the attendance of witnesses. In the case of an accident it may be difficult for the worker or it may be difficult for the employer to produce witnesses who can testify to the circumstances in which the accident occurred if the accident took place outside the jurisdiction of the Saorstát. That is another reason why we may be careful not to put into this Bill a section which may be hopelessly ineffective. We want the co-operation of the Government of the place in which the accident takes place. In return we are prepared to give that Government our co-operation here. Our co-operation is far more material to them than their co-operation is to us. It is far more likely that foreign contractors will bring workers to work here than that Saorstát contractors should take their workers to work in Northern Ireland or Great Britain or elsewhere. For that reason it is more important to outside Governments to secure an arrangement with us than it is for us to secure arrangements with them. I do not see any difficulty in the matter of making these arrangements.

I would wish to put one question to the Minister. His speech gave me some hope that he was thinking rationally in the matter. I want to know from him if my impression as to this amendment is correct. Paragraph (d) says where "such workman was at the said date normally employed in connection with the employer's trade or business in Saorstát Eireann." I cited the case as an instance of a contractor in the Saorstát securing a contract for making roads in Northern Ireland. Now his principal business was in the Saorstát. He brought the workers to Northern Ireland from the Saorstát, and he made a contract of service with them in the Free State. In the course of their work there an injury was sustained by one of the workers. I want to know from the Minister, will that come within the meaning of this paragraph (d) of (3), of this amendment? I would like to have the Minister say "‘Yes" or "No."

My answer to that is "yes." It is intended that such a case should be covered, that is, a case where the employer's principal place of business is here, and where the work done outside the Saorstát was of the character of work which the employer normally undertook. Paragraph (d) is intended to cover that case.

I think that the Minister's amendment covers most of the cases that I cited and that I wish to have embodied in the Bill. But I am troubled over the details of his amendment. Take paragraph (b), which says "such workman was at the date of such accident employed under a contract of service made in Saorstát Eireann." Now a building contractor takes a job of work in Enniskillen. He brings with him to Enniskillen a number of men who are regularly with him at his work in the Saorstát. I am not quite sure whether it would be part of the practice of that business for the employer to say to the labourer, who has been with him for, perhaps, over ten years, that he has only a daily or weekly contract. Yet he goes with him to Enniskillen to take part in the ordinary operations of his business, he is only an employee to be paid off at any moment when the job is finished or to be paid off in wet weather. He is to be employed every morning practically—I do not know whether it would be open to the employer to say "where was that contract of service made?" It would be argued that it was made in Enniskillen and, therefore, the workman would be debarred under this section as it stands, and as the amendment stands. We come then to paragraph (d)—"such workman was at the said date normally employed in connection with the employer's trade or business in Saorstát Eireann." I do not appreciate the use of the word "normally," and there I would like to have an explanation. At the date of the accident he was "normally" employed. I do not understand the meaning there of the word "normally."

Normally employed in the Saorstát.

Does "normally" there mean the employer's trade and business which is normally carried on in the Saorstát or does it mean that the employer's trade and business in the Saorstát must be the purpose of the engagement outside the area?

I would say that the business in the Saorstát is the business in respect of which the workman should be normally employed, and if by reason of the necessities of that business he would happen to be employed outside the Saorstát he would come within the provisions of this section. It is very clear.

I am not so sure that it is so clear now or any clearer than it was before. The explanation of this word "normally" is by no means clear to me, and I am not quite sure that it is intended that the employment shall be normally in the Saorstát or whether it is that the employer's trade and business which is normally carried on in the Saorstát are extended over the Border?

It means normally employed in the Saorstát in connection with his employer's trade and business.

Let us take the case where a contractor has taken a contract to build a mental hospital in Enniskillen, very probable and desirable. There is incidental to that work some portion of the work which this contractor does not usually carry on in the Saorstát. Would that contractor be covered of would the workman be excluded by this particular paragraph? I think he would. I am inclined to think that paragraph (d) is too vague and is drawn in such a way as to be susceptible of a variety of interpretations. For that reason, I would certainly like to have the Minister's intention stated with a view to revising the draft so that his intention shall be clearly defined.

I think the intention is quite clear. It is to provide that where a Dublin contractor takes a contract in Northern Ireland, say he has a ganger, a man normally employed by him, and he says to the ganger: "I want you to go up to Enniskillen or Belfast to take charge of that work there"; or he tells his motor driver to take a load of bricks from Dundalk to Buncrana and in his journey to Buncrana he goes across Northern Ireland and meets with an accident there; or a man tells his groom to take a horse across to an English racecourse. That is the type of case this covers. We cannot provide against a claim in the Northern Courts. If we were to try to provide that we would open the door to double compensation. That is what we do not want to provide. We do not want to ensure that the workman who has a good claim in Northern Ireland can sustain it here. I give you a case, say, of Messrs. Guinness. Messrs. Guinness are registered in England. In London they employ somebody who is an Irishman and that person is injured. If we were to delete this phrase, that person might have a right to proceed against Messrs. Guinness in Great Britain and also a right to proceed here. We are getting over that difficulty by stating that the contract of service must have been made here and that a man must have been normally employed in Saorstát Eireann. It is the best we can do. This sub-section has been produced after very considerable deliberation by those responsible for its drafting. I think we have now covered all the cases we can cover. The intention is to secure that in circumstances such as I have mentioned, where a person normally employed by his employer in the Saorstát is sent outside the jurisdiction and is injured there, we are providing that such a workman can claim as if the accident occurred here.

I take it that you are more or less debating together amendments 10, 11 and 12?

Cathaoirleach

Amendments 10 and 12.

The point about which I want to ask the Minister is whether it would not be possible to deal with circumstances which can conceivably arise. The man is normally employed in the Saorstát; he goes across the Border and he is employed there by a Saorstát employer at the kind of work which the Minister mentioned. In the course of his employment there, he is knocked down by a motor car or injured or damaged in some way by a third party. That man would have his rights in Northern Ireland to take action for damages against that third party and he might get a very substantial sum. Now it seems to me that it is our interest here to safeguard the Irish insurance companies and for that reason I would have liked to have seen added to amendment 12 some provision, if it were possible to provide it, that such workman would be obliged, if requested by the employer and, of course, at the employer's expense, to take action under the common law such as he would be entitled to in Northern Ireland or anywhere outside and so reduce the amount payable by the Saorstát employer as far as he could. The more money that is paid by insurance companies here the higher will be the premiums to be paid by Saorstát employers. If there is a case against a third party such as that which I mentioned about the motor car, it seems to me that that money should be obtained and the workman should be under the obligation, not of course at his own expense, to take action if requested by his employer or by the insurance companies as the case may be. It is our interest here to have premiums kept as low as possible. I quite see the Minister's difficulty. At the moment we cannot do anything because we have not got these legal rights; but to the best of my belief if the Free State had got that legal right and if a Free State workman were to work in Northern Ireland and meet with an accident there he could take action for damages in the Northern courts I think under these circumstances such a workman should be obliged to take that action under amendment 12 and at the expense of the employer. That compensation should be reducible accordingly. It would be definitely to our advantage and the advantage of our Irish insurance companies.

I do not think that what Senator Douglas has said could fairly or reasonably be insisted upon for the reason that workmen's compensation is not a complete indemnity and never was intended to be a complete indemnity. For instance, if a man is knocked down by a motor car or killed under circumstances of aggravation in any other way, or seriously injured, the damages which the jury may award him might be far in excess of any compensation that would be awarded him under this measure. This Bill is simply intended to make provision, not by way of indemnity, but more or less by way of relief for an injured workman. Why should a workman be compelled as a condition of getting compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts to take an action outside the jurisdiction at common law or under the Employers' Liability Act? Why should that onus be placed upon him? Common law actions and actions under the Employers' Liability Act are expensive.

Senator Douglas says that no doubt it would be at the expense of the employer, but there are various expenses and worries in connection with common law actions which are never provided for by costs of litigation. What Senator Douglas suggests as an onus to be imposed on the workman has never, so far as my recollection goes, been suggested in any legislation dealing with workmen. In my opinion it would be unenforceable and unjust, and it would place a very undue burden on a workman who sustains injury in the course of his employment. There are, of course, various provisions dealing with cases where an accident occurs and where it gives the workman two rights of action. I think these provisions go as far as you can possibly go. I think it would be wrong to legislate on the lines suggested by Senator Douglas.

Apparently Senator Comyn considers that in the event of a claim lying on somebody outside the area of jurisdiction, nothing should be done. It seems to me that if there is a claim on some person outside it is clearly in the interest of the State that that claim should be made. I quite agree with the Senator that when I referred to the employer's expense I was not proposing an exact form of amendment but I meant that he should be in every respect indemnified. I merely put forward a possible case which I would like the Minister, between this and the Report Stage, to consider. It is not dealt with here and there might be some way of dealing with it. I raised it merely in the interest of the bona fide Irish insurance companies.

Senator Douglas has brought in a new complication which is inevitable as soon as we proceed to deal with cases outside the jurisdiction. If an accident of the kind described by Senator Douglas occurs within the jurisdiction the workman can proceed against the employer and the employer can proceed against the third party for compensation. That cannot be done if the accident occurs in Northern Ireland. It is clear that if we give the worker the right to proceed against the employer in our courts, in respect of accidents occurring in Northern Ireland that if the accident occurs in circumstances which give the worker the right in common law against the third party, the worker may get double compensation, compensation from his employer and third party compensation in Northern Ireland, without the employer being able to exercise the right to secure indemnification from the third party as he would if the accident occurred here. Complications are bound to arise if we go outside the jurisdiction.

I suggest that it would be possible to insert a sub-section or a proviso to Section 12, which would provide some obligation in certain circumstances for the workman to do what, if it were inside the jurisdiction, the employer would do, at the expense of the employer.

The most you could do is that you might say the workman should be obliged to allow his name to be used and to have no further responsibility in connection with the litigation.

That is what I proposed.

What exactly does Senator Douglas mean?

The employer would be free to take that action himself in the Free State and what I want is that the workman should be allowed to permit his name to be used so as to enable the employer to do the thing which he cannot do by reason of the circumstances in which the accident occurred.

As the law will stand the worker will have the right to proceed for compensation here and other compensation outside the jurisdiction. If you tell the workman that, he is not likely to surrender it in order to benefit his employer.

I think the suggestion is one that deserves looking into.

I would like to get some information from the Minister as to what his expectation is with regard to reciprocal legislation in Northern Ireland or Great Britain, but, particularly, Northern Ireland, where the majority of the cases that I have in mind will arise. The Minister, apparently, is standing firm on the wording of his amendments. He is doing so on the assumption that the injured workman will have some right in Northern Ireland, though he is a resident of the Free State, because the accident occurred in Northern Ireland. Has the Minister any reasonable ground for expecting that within a short time Northern Ireland will pass legislation which will give the Free State workman a fair chance of pursuing his claims to success in Northern Ireland? The Minister has suggested that little can be done in that direction except there is an international agreement. I am in favour of international agreements on such matters as this, but I do not want to make a Free State workman wait until the Northern Ireland Parliament passes reciprocal legislation on this point, when it has refused to reciprocate on other matters of almost greater importance. Has the Minister any reasonable grounds for expecting that Northern Ireland will legislate reciprocally in respect to workmen's compensation?

The Northern Ireland and the British Act, like this Act, makes no distinction between nationals and non-nationals. In accordance with the convention we have signed, and which the unit known as Great Britain and Northern Ireland have signed, that is the position; there is no difference between nationals and non-nationals. Saorstát workmen employed by a Northern employer and injured in Northern Ireland can proceed in the Northern courts.

I confess that at the close of the debate I am more confused in mind than ever as to what exactly is the Minister's attitude. In reply to a query of mine, respecting a test case that I put forward, his answer was "yes." Then in reply to some observations of Senator Johnson he returned to his first love, that he wooed, and I do not know whether he won her, on the last day when this matter was discussed in the Seanad. He said that it is only a certain type, some birds of passage through external territory, that can be brought within the ambit of this. The case I put to him was specifically the case of someone operating there under contract of service made in the Free State with a Free State employer. The Minister's answer was "yes." I think it is important that a decision on this amendment should be deferred until the Minister has made up his mind as to what exactly is his attitude or policy on this matter.

He has introduced certain quite irrelevant arguments. He seemed to regard my stressing of nationals as being superfluous. I did that in order to emphasise my argument and to bring it down to a narrower compass so that we could get a definite idea of whether or not in such a case the decision would lie in the Saorstát courts. The Minister admitted that it will not, but he declines to give effect to that admission in his amendment. It will be a pity if an inadequately thought-out and ill-considered amendment is passed here to-day. It is doubtful if that could be modified or improved or removed on the Report Stage and it may become the law.

There is one point the Minister made when introducing the Bill. He referred to the importance of this measure. This, he said, is going to be the law of insurance and I think it is important that in a matter of such importance there should be a clear idea of the implications and the limitations of the amendment that the Government are sponsoring. Senator Johnson, has, I think, very correctly drawn attention to the ambiguity, the uncertainty of meaning of sub-section (d). I do not think, with such a lack of clarity, that the sub-section should be allowed to pass. I think the whole question of amending this section should be deferred to the Report Stage and then if we cannot find clarity of idea or clearness of purpose we should recommit this section in order to get something definite that will be equitable and fair. If the Minister is prepared to defer his amendment to the Report Stage I will defer mine. I think it would be regrettable indeed if we came to a decision on such an important phase of this Bill as this is without a very clear understanding of what we are approving of.

Cathaoirleach

Do you wish me to put your amendment, Senator?

If the Minister is prepared to defer his amendment until the Report Stage I am prepared to defer mine.

Cathaoirleach

We are in Committee now trying to deal with the amendments that are before the House. It is not competent for a Senator to alter an amendment without the permission of the mover. He may try and change it on Report. That is the only course open to you. This cannot be delayed now without the consent of the mover.

But is it not a usual practice of the House to leave over for Report amendments that have been tabled for the Committee Stage?

Cathaoirleach

Yes, if the mover so desires, but not otherwise.

And I am asking the Minister is he prepared to do that now?

I do not think it would get us any further.

I would ask the Minister, if amendment 12 is carried, to consider between this and Report Stage the point that I made as a possible addendum.

I would not like to give any ground for thinking that I would agree to that. I would like to consider it. It is an interesting point.

Amendment 10 put.
The Committee divided, Tá, 17; Níl, 25.

  • Barniville, Dr. Henry L.
  • Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
  • Browne, Miss Kathleen.
  • Costello, Mrs.
  • Counihan, John C.
  • Duggan, E.J.
  • Fanning, Michael.
  • Gogarty, Dr. O. St. J.
  • Kennedy, Cornelius.
  • MacLoughlin, John.
  • Milroy, Seán.
  • O'Rourke, Brian.
  • O'Sullivan, Dr. William.
  • Parkinson, James J.
  • Staines, Michael.
  • Toal, Thomas.
  • Wilson, Richard.

Níl

  • Bagwell, John.
  • Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
  • Comyn, K.C., Michael.
  • Connolly, Joseph.
  • Cummins, William.
  • Douglas, James G.
  • Dowdall, J.C.
  • Duffy, Michael.
  • Farren, Thomas.
  • Foran, Thomas.
  • Griffiith, Sir John Purser.
  • Guinness, Henry S.
  • Johnson, Thomas.
  • Keane, Sir John.
  • Keyes, Raphael P.
  • Linehan, Thomas.
  • McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
  • MacKean, James.
  • Moore, Colonel.
  • O'Farrell, John T.
  • O'Neill, L.
  • Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
  • Quirke, William.
  • Robinson, David L.
  • Robinson, Séamus.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Milroy and Duggan; Níl: Senators S. and D.L. Robinson.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment 11 not moved.

On behalf of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries, I move amendment 12:—

Section 15. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—

(3) Where—

(a) personal injury by accident occurring outside Saorstát Eireann is caused to a workman, and

(b) such workman was at the date of such accident employed under a contract of service made in Saorstát Eireann, and

(c) the principal or only place of trade or business of the employer of such workman was at the said date in Saorstát Eireann. and

(d) such workman was at the said date normally employed in connection with the employer's trade or business in Saorstát Eireann,

such accident shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to have occurred in Saorstát Eireann.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 15, as amended, and Sections 16 and 17 agreed to.
SECTION 18.
(2) Where compensation is payable under this Act in respect of an injury to a workman which results in his death—
(c) such compensation shall, if he leaves no dependant, be paid to his personal representative or, if he has no such representative, to the persons to whom the expenses of medical attendance and burial are due, in such shares as may, in default of agreement between those persons, be ordered by the court.
(3) Where compensation consisting wholly or partly of the adults' lump sum is payable under this Act in respect of an injury to a workman which results in his death and such workman leaves both total and partial dependants, nothing in this Act shall be construed as preventing the adults' lump sum being allotted partly to such total dependants and partly to such partial dependants.
(4) Where a dependant dies before a claim under this Act is made or, if a claim has been made, before an award has been made, the legal personal representative of the dependant shall have no right to payment of compensation, and the amount of compensation shall be calculated and apportioned as if the dependant had died before the workman.

On behalf of the Minister for Lands and Fisheries, I move amendments 13, 14 and 15:

Section 18, sub-section (2). To delete in line 13 the words "no dependant" and to substitute therefor the words "neither an adult dependant nor a juvenile dependant."

Section 18, sub-section (3). Before the word "dependants" in line 22 to insert the word "adult".

Section 18, sub-section (4). To delete in line 26 the words "a dependant" and to substitute therefor the words "an adult dependant or a juvenile dependant".

These were drafting amendments, in consequence of an amendment that was made to Section 5.

Amendments agreed to.
Section 18, as amended, agreed to.

I move amendment 16:

Before Section 19 to insert a new section as follows:—

19.—(1) In addition to any compensation payable by an employer under this Act to or in respect of a workman, the employer shall pay the cost, not exceeding the maximum amounts prescribed in this section, of such medical, surgical and hospital treatment and ambulance service as are reasonably necessary in relation to the injury. The amount payable under this section shall, in the absence of agreement, be determined by the court.

(2) For the purposes of this section—

"ambulance service" includes any conveyance of an injured workman to a medical practitioner or to a hospital;

"medical treatment" includes—

(a) treatment by a legally qualified medical practitioner, a registered dentist, or a masseur;

(b) the provision of skiagrams, crutches, and artificial members; and

(c) any nursing, medicines, medical or surgical supplies or curative apparatus supplied or provided for him otherwise than as a patient at a hospital;

"hospital treatment" means treatment at any hospital and includes the maintenance of the workman as a patient at the hospital and the provision or supply by the hospital of nursing, attendance, medicines, medical or surgical supplies or other curative apparatus, and any other ancillary service.

(3) (a) The sum for which an employer shall be liable for the hospital treatment of any workman as an in-patient shall be the cost to the hospital of the hospital treatment, not exceeding thirty shillings per week.

(b) The sum for which an employer shall be liable for the hospital treatment of any workman as an out-patient shall not exceed three shillings per treatment nor one pound per week.

(c) The sum for which an employer shall be liable for hospital treatment afforded to a workman on account of the same injury (whether such treatment is afforded at different stages of the injury or not) shall not exceed twenty-five pounds.

(d) The Secretary, Registrar or any officer so authorised by the Governing Body of the hospital, or in the case of a private hospital the proprietor, may recover from the employer any sum for which the employer may be liable in respect of hospital treatment under this section.

(e) Where the employer pays to a hospital in respect of the detention and treatment, or either of them, of a workman the sum in that behalf payable under this section, such hospital shall not be entitled to recover payment or fees from such workman in respect of such detention and treatment or either of them (as the case may be).

(f) In this section the expression "Governing Body" in relation to a hospital means the person or persons, whether incorporated or unincorporated, entitled to sue and liable to be sued in respect of such hospital as proprietor or manager thereof or otherwise.

(4) (a) The sum for which an employer shall be liable for the medical treatment of a workman shall be such sum as is reasonably appropriate to the treatment afforded, having regard to the reasonable necessity for the treatment and the customary charge made in the community for such treatment.

(b) The sum for which an employer shall be liable for medical treatment afforded to a workman on account of the same injury (whether the treatment is afforded at different stages of the injury or not) shall not exceed twenty pounds.

(5) The sum for which an employer shall be liable for ambulance service rendered to a workman shall not exceed two pounds.

(6) (a) Where a workman receives medical treatment or hospital treatment or ambulance service on account of an injury, he shall without undue delay notify the employer in the manner prescribed that he has received such treatment and furnish him with reasonable particulars of the treatment or service.

(b) Where a workman receives medical treatment for an injury, the employer shall be entitled to cause an examination of the workman to be conducted in consultation with the person who afforded such medical treatment by a legally qualified medical practitioner selected and paid by the employer.

Although this is a long amendment it is not quite as formidable as the language would seem to indicate. It provides that in addition to the compensation which will normally be recoverable in respect of an accident which causes incapacity or partial incapacity, the workman shall receive indemnity in respect of medical and hospital expenses. When a workman meets with an accident, his ordinary tenor of life is interrupted, and he has to suffer probably considerable physical pain and mental anguish, and, in addition, has to incur medical and hospital expenses, which are sometimes considerable. Between the time he meets with the accident, and the period at which he may enter upon what is to be his normal future state of incapacity or partial incapacity an amount of suffering and a good deal of expense will have been incurred. I contend it is only reasonable that the person responsible for paying him compensation for the accident should assist him to bridge over that period. Otherwise, there must be deducted from the compensation which he receives, the abnormal cost involved in hospital and medical expenses arising out of the accident. The term "medical treatment" is defined in the amendment, and "hospital treatment" is defined as treatment received while an indoor patient. There is a definite limit placed on hospital treatment, 30/- per week, so that there is an all-over maximum fixed of £25 in respect of any one accident. A maximum of £20 is fixed in respect of medical treatment, and £2 in respect of ambulance service, so that the total maximum to which a man would be entitled in a case of that kind is £47, provided he requires all the treatment stipulated, including ambulance service.

The amendment provides that the governing body of the hospital shall have power to recover the amount specified from the employer, and that they may not proceed against the workman, once they have recovered from the employer. Of course, it will be said that the hospitals are so well provided for now, with funds under the Sweepstakes, that there is no reason for giving them this power. Whatever position is created as a result of the Hospitals' Sweepstakes, it is a fact that hospitals still recover compensation for the treatment of a workman who gets compensation. There is a precedent for this. The workmen's compensation laws in force in the United States, in Australia, in Finland and other countries contains facilities for workmen, at least as favourable as those indicated here. In Finland the employer has to pay the full cost of medical and surgical treatment from the date of the accident to the termination of the illness. The Finnish legislation requires the employer to provide bandages, and artificial limbs and to maintain them in effective order. In Southern Rhodesia they provide, in addition to other compensation in respect to an accident, that there shall also be paid medical and hospital expenses not exceeding £100 necessarily incurred as a result of the injury. There is there a maximum of £100 as against £47 stipulated in this amendment. Under the common law a person who meets with an accident as a result of being knocked down by a motor car has the right to recover hospital expenses. I see no good reason why a similar right should not obtain where a person receives an injury in the discharge of his duty.

It will be said that this adds to the cost of compensation. It does to a limited extent. But I think it is an addition that is justified by circumstances. A man who meets with a serious accident, and who is deprived of his income during the period of hospital and medical treatment, has to incur considerable expense as a result of that treatment, and he should not be required to take from the rather meagre compensation provided an amount to meet these expenses. The maximum is 30/- weekly. It is a monstrous imposition on any incapacitated man to have to meet very large hospital and medical expenses afterwards. I suggest that employers should be made liable for getting him into that condition, which will be his normal state for the future, by paying, at all events the cost of hospital and medical treatment.

I am afraid it is not possible to accept the amendment. The amount of compensation provided under this Bill in respect of workers killed, or workers injured, either permanently or partially, was fixed after very careful deliberation, having regard to the Report of the Committee, and to the law in other European countries. The amendment proposed by Senator O'Farrell is really one to increase the amount of compensation. It does not make any difference whether you allocate it to a particular purpose or not. That is the effect. You might increase the compensation by a corresponding amount and decide that the addition as it stands was to pay the grocer or the butcher who supplied the worker with food or meat during the period when he was establishing his claim. I think there would be a better case for allocating the increase to the butcher or grocer than to hospital expenses. No matter how it is done the sole effect of the amendment is to increase the amount of compensation. We would all like to increase the amount, and we would like to see that a worker who was injured or deprived of earning capacity would be amply provided for, but we must try to strike a reasonable balance having regard to the obligations we are imposing upon employers. Frequently the employer is no better off than the worker. It was after having regard to all these considerations that certain amounts were fixed after prolonged deliberation, and it is not possible at this stage to increase them, no matter what particular plea or argument there is for increasing them. It is possible to consider quite a number of liabilities which the worker would have to incur, following an accident, before he gets compensation. If we were to decide to increase the compensation, or to earmark it for a particular purpose, we might earmark it for any particular purpose. My own feeling is that no case has been sustained for earmarking it to pay hospital charges and the like. In fact, there is a less case than arguments that might be advanced for earmarking it for other purposes.

I would rather see the scale of compensation increased than to agree to an amendment of this character. If the scale of compensation is reasonably high I am sure, when it was fixed, these questions were taken into consideration, such as the expense the workman would have to incur in getting food. I think the argument of Senator O'Farrell proceeds on a wrong assumption. The Workmen's Compensation Acts were designed to meet cases of misfortune to workers when accidents occurred without any wrong on the part of any other person. If a workman or any other person is knocked down by a motor car which was negligently driven, or if he is injured by a wrongful act of another person, he is, of course, entitled to medical expenses and damages. But in this case compensation is given and is payable by the employer, in a case where the employer is not negligent, and has done no wrong. But he is expected to bear portion of the misfortune which has happened to the workman. The basis of compensation is that the misfortune has to be borne mainly by the poor man who is injured, but alleviated partly by the man in whose employment he was, although that man was not in any way responsible for the injury. That is the basis of compensation and that is the reason it is called compensation and not damages.

In the case put up by Senator O'Farrell where a man by his own negligence injures another man, he is bound to give full indemnity to the other man, and that full indemnity includes all damages, including medical expenses. I would be very slow, indeed, to say one word that would tend to cut down any reasonable allowance that can be made for the workman who has the misfortune to sustain an accident, but there must be some limits. We must consider the amount that the employer is bound to pay although he may have committed no wrong. That is the case of the employer. This is beneficial legislation and good legislation, but it could be carried to such an extent as to prevent the employment of men. It could be carried too far. I think the Minister in his scale of compensation under this Bill, and in the general provisions, has gone very far indeed. I am glad he has gone so far in amelioration of the lot of the workman who happens to meet with an accident in the course of his employment. But this proposed amendment would be going too far. It would be introducing the principle that a man who has a workman who meets with an accident shall be put into the same position as if he deliberately, by his own tort, caused that accident.

There is another consideration. I submit to Senator O'Farrell that the workman will get more by a good, reasonable scale of compensation than he would by the passing of a section of this kind which would place the employer under liability to other people and would make him a defendant in cases by ambulance authorities, hospital authorities and other authorities, some of them charitable institutions, that come to the relief of injured people. It would be very serious to employers themselves if they were to be liable to the extent of £47 for ambulance treatment and other things in case of accidents in respect of which they were guilty of doing no wrong. If the employer is guilty of a wrong in reference to an accident, he is liable at common law for damages. This is an Act of compensation and it is the basis of such Acts that the employer is guilty, not of a wrong or tort, but that the law requires him to make some contribution towards alleviating the misfortune which comes upon his workman from an accident. For that reason I think this section, in principle, ought not to be accepted. It would be impossible to carry it into effect. It would lead to very extravagant claims against employers. If you think workmen ought to get more in respect of accidents, the best thing to do for the workman and the employer would be to increase the scale of compensation so that the workman might get the full benefit of it. But I think the scale of compensation in the present case cannot be increased in the circumstances of this country at the present time. I would like to protect the workman and give him the highest wages possible, and the highest compensation the industry can afford. At the same time you have to consider how much industry can afford and you have to consider whether a section of this kind, if introduced into the Act, would not tend rather to diminish employment. I am sure that those who represent Labour in this House consider these matters and are very reasonable about them. I do not think that the time has arrived to accept a section of this kind which would put the employer who has an injured workman in a position which he is not able to face.

I think Senator Comyn, and to some extent also the Minister, has misconstrued the effect of this amendment if it were carried. I believe firmly that the effect would be to reduce the charge upon the employer, because it would tend to ensure that the injured person would have efficient medical treatment and would prevent the possibility of permanent incapacity where, after timely medical treatment, there would be only temporary incapacity. The workman is being assured that if he takes expert medical advise or goes to hospital for treatment the cost is not going to be a burden upon him. There would be some means of assurance to the medical adviser, to the doctor and the hospital that they would be recompensed to a moderate degree as a consequence. Anyone who mixes with people suffering from sickness or accident knows how reluctant men are to go to medical advisers for fear of the financial responsibility they are incurring. That is a very frequent complaint. They say, "Oh, I will put this off for a little while, I will get better without any treatment. I cannot run the risk of adding to the cost in this matter." I suggest this amendment, if carried, would definitely have the effect of reducing the liability upon the employer, because it would encourage the workman to seek medical advice and to have treatment of a medical kind wherever possible, showing themselves in that way anxious to hurry up the treatment and the cure. It is not so much a case of compensation to the workman. In effect, this amendment does what Senator Sir E. Coey Bigger's amendment seeks to do with this difference: that Senator Sir E. Coey Bigger in his amendment wants to deprive the workman of the cash compensation. We are thinking, in this amendment, of the treatment of the ailment. If the workman is to be encouraged to have surgical treatment or medical treatment, then he should feel free to go to the hospital to have his ailment attended to. I feel pretty certain that the insurance companies, who are the persons mainly concerned in this, would rather support this kind of payment than the possible payment of larger sums, whether for death or permanent incapacity, where a man might be treated in time and so assured of a very much shorter period of incapacity. Even on that ground I think an amendment of this sort, or some amendment of this nature, would be desirable.

I do not think that Senator Johnson's remarks picture the hospitals in their proper light. I do not believe for a moment that at any time, and certainly since the hospitals have been relieved of much financial strain, there would be anything but efficient and proper treatment of patients. I cannot believe that the hospitals will not give their full and best service to an injured person irrespective altogether of what payment they are likely to receive. I feel there is a temptation in this—a practical invitation to the hospitals to charge within the limits, which are rather elastic, to the full amount of the compensation to be given. I think there is a natural temptation upon them to be undoubtedly generous in their charges knowing that it will fall upon the industry. I personally cannot see my way to support this amendment.

Arising out of some of the remarks made by Senator Comyn, I should like to have a clear understanding upon certain points. I rather gathered from what he said that any employee who is injured, whether in the course of his employment or not, would be entitled to compensation no matter when he was injured, and should get it. I shall give a concrete case. If my gardener, in the course of his work, injures his foot, and goes to hospital in consequence of that injury, I understand I certainly would be liable under the Employers' Liability Act. On the other hand, if he is injured not in the course of his work but in the course of enjoying himself, if, for instance, he is knocked down, am I then, as his employer, liable for the injuries he sustains in such circumstances. I rather gathered from what Senator Comyn said—I heard him rather indistinctly—that in any circumstances whether in the course of employment or not, if an employee sustains an injury the employer is liable.

No. He is only liable if the accident arose out of employment, which would include the time the man is going or coming to his work. But if he went home and then went out, say to the pictures, and met with an accident, his employer would not be liable.

I knew that was the case, but I did not know whether under this Bill some new ideas were not brought in.

The object of this amendment is not to penalise or punish the employer. It is merely seeking a matter of justice for the unhappy victim of an accident. The Minister says we might as well allot or earmark a certain portion of the compensation to buy provisions. That is not a proper comparison. The maximum of 30/- is allowed to the injured workman to purchase provisions and things of that kind. The hospital treatment arising out of the accident is a special consideration altogether. Take for instance the case of a railway engine driver whose ordinary wage may be £4 10s., and with overtime and Sunday duty may amount to £6. I have seen a man taken away after a railway accident in such a state that I wondered how any surgeon could piece him together again. That man would require quite a number of major operations, an enormous amount of skin grafting and various other kinds of treatment, electrical and otherwise, for many months afterwards. That man's avearge wage is £6 per week. When he gets his compensation he is allowed 30/- a week to compensate him for this loss. Does that 30/- pay for all these operations and subsequent medical treatment. Surely there is a case there for making some allowance for them without taking from that miserable 30/- a week the amount necessary to pay for all that treatment. In many cases there is a question of artificial limbs and their maintenance. I do not know why this is said to be generous compensation. It is only generous compensation to the man who is earning anything from £2 to £2 5s. 0d. a week. There it is a fairly generous proportion of his earning income in full capacity, but surely, when you go above that figure it is only a very small amount of what he would earn if he were in his health, and you are not compensating him at all. You are simply keeping him from utter destitution. I think, as a minimum, we should at least help him to overcome this terrible abnormal expense that has to be incurred.

I have known a man to meet with an accident. I saw his bill afterwards, and his total expenses were £53 10s. 0d., and he then was not quite rid of the doctors. At 30/- per week, you had the greater portion of the whole year's compensation allocated to pay that. He had to try to make an arrangement to pay it by instalments over a period, but it was an intense hardship, and it simply meant taking money that was required to buy food and other necessaries for his family, in order to pay for these abnormal expenses. This is a matter that can be covered in the insurance, and it will be a varying amount, because in some cases, a man may become blind, and the total amount of treatment may not be very expensive. He loses his sight quite quickly in an accident, but in the case of a man who is scalded or lacerated in a boiler explosion, or who has his limbs torn or mangled, the treatment is long, painful and expensive, and in that case I think it should be met. In the other case, it will be a rather negligible charge, perhaps, although a man may be rendered incapable of further work. We have here provisions to prevent exploitation or extravagance. There is a limit of 30/- per week to the hospital for indoor treatment; there is a limit of 3/- per treatment for extern treatment, or a maximum of £1 per week, and then there is the all-over maximum. I cannot agree at all that the 30/- per week as a maximum is so generous as to enable one to call upon a man, with any sense of justice, to defray out of it these terrible expenses which he has to incur as a result of the accident. I would commend this to the favourable attention of the House and of the Minister in particular.

Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 19, 20 and 21 agreed to.
SECTION 22.
(1) Where compensation is payable under this Act in respect of an injury to a workman which results in his death, the following provision shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) if such workman leaves an adult dependant but does not leave any juvenile dependant, the compensation shall be a lump sum (in this Act referred to as the adults' lump sum), of an amount calculated in accordance with the rules contained in the Second Schedule to this Act;
(b) if such workman leaves an adult dependant and also leaves a juvenile dependant, the compensation shall consist of—
(i) the adults' lump sum, and
(ii) a lump sum (in this Act referred to as the children's lump sum) of an amount calculated in accordance with the rules contained in the Second Schedule to this Act;
(c) if such workman leaves no adult dependant but leaves a juvenile dependant, the compensation shall be a lump sum (in this Act also referred to as the children's lump sum) of an amount calculated in accordance with the rules contained in the Second Schedule to this Act;
(d) if the workman leaves no dependants, the compensation shall be a lump sum not exceeding £15, equal to the reasonable expenses of his medical attendance and burial.
(2) If any weekly payments payable to a workman have been redeemed either by order of the court or by agreement made under this Act, or if liability to make weekly payments has been redeemed by an agreement made under this Act, or if where an employer disputed his liability to make a weekly payment under this Act to a workman, such employer and workman entered into an agreement under this Act whereby in consideration of the payment by such employer to such workman of a lump sum, such workman released such employer from his liability (if any) to make such weekly payments and the amount paid in respect of such redemption or release (as the case may be) equals or exceeds £600, no compensation shall be awardable under this Act in respect of the death of such workman.

I move amendment No. 17:—

Section 22, sub-section (1). To delete in line 15 the words "no dependants" and to substitute therefor the words "neither an adult dependant nor a juvenile dependant."

It is consequential on a previous amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 22, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Before we pass from the section, I should like to raise a point which will probably come up for discussion in more detail on a later amendment. I should like to be informed of the effect of sub-section (2). As I understand the connection between this and the Schedule, the effect is that where a man is injured and receives weekly payments for a period and then makes an arrangement with the employer for redemption of the liability and subsequently dies as a consequence of the injury, the amount the relatives would get as compensation for his fatal accident would have to be reduced by the total amount he receives under the agreement for redemption. I should like to know from the Minister whether that is the correct meaning of this sub-section taken in conjunction with the Schedule, because I want to have the Bill amended so that there will be, in any case, a sum of money due to the relatives of that deceased person notwithstanding his having made what was probably a very disadvantageous redemption agreement. I should like the Minister to give an explanation of the meaning of this sub-section so that I may know what course to take on a later amendment.

That is correct. If the liability to make weekly payments has been redeemed by agreement or if where an employer

disputed his liability to make a weekly payment under this Act to a workman, such employer and workman entered into an agreement under this Act whereby in consideration of the payment by such employer to such workman of a lump sum, such workman released such employer from his liability (if any) to make such weekly payments and the amount paid in respect of such redemption or release (as the case may be) equals or exceeds £600, no compensation shall be awardable under this Act in respect of the death of such workman,

the rules provide that if the amount is less, the amount paid is deductible from the amount awardable on death.

The total amount?

The total amount, yes. In any case of weekly payments, it is provided that the sum of the weekly payments may be deducted from the adult's lump sum—there can be no deduction from the children's lump sum. It is only where there has been this commutation, this acceptance of a lump sum in discharge of the employer's liability, that that operates.

So it is possible for a person, having made an agreement for redemption, not to get anything in case of death?

He has got the amount he agreed to take.

That is the point I wanted to have clear.

If the redemption agreement exceeds £600 he is not entitled to get anything?

He gets nothing at all.

But if it is less than £600, he is entitled to the difference between the amount received and £600.

Question put and agreed to.
The House adjourned at 6.40 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, January 18th.
Top
Share