Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Dec 1941

Vol. 26 No. 3

Pier and Harbour Provisional Order Confirmation Bill, 1941. - Emergency Powers (No. 98) Order, 1941—Motion to Revoke.

Mr. M. Hayes

I move:—

That Seanad Eireann is of opinion that Emergency Powers (No. 98) Order, 1941 (Compensation) Scheme, 1941, dated 17th September, 1941, should be revoked.

I put down this motion, not because I object to the compensation for personal injury but because it is the only course in order to have the matter discussed. It will be in the recollection of members of the House that the question of damage to property by bombs or other kind of war action, whether accidental or otherwise, was dealt with in a Bill and was discussed here in what turned out to be a very fruitful and, on the whole, a satisfactory manner. No doubt for good reasons, the Minister chose to provide for compensation for personal injury, not by way of an Act of Parliament but by way of a Statutory Rule and Order under the Emergency Powers Act passed at the beginning of this war. The difficulty of procedure by order is that the Minister is never called upon to explain the order in detail and we are in a different position from the one we occupy in dealing with a Bill, as a member of the House has to initiate the discussion and give his own rendering—which may not be correct—of the meaning of various parts of the order. I want to deal with the order with regard to its principles; I want also to deal with certain specific points in the order; and I want to argue that the order needs very drastic amendment, and that in some particulars it could be amended without any extra outlay to the State.

The order deals with civilian casualties only and expressly excludes members of the Defence Forces, Gárda, the Local Defence Force and the Local Security Force or A.R.P. Services. While I am on that point, I might ask the Minister to tell us when it will be possible to know what precise provision is being made for members of the Local Defence Force and Local Security Force who are injured while on duty. I have not been able to find any order at home dealing with these matters. I believe I am right in saying that the general principle on which this order is based is that compensation is to be paid only for injury and dependency: no compensation is granted under these provisions for what one might call sentimental loss. Perhaps we cannot disagree with that. The general principle of the order is that it recognises the necessity for compensation by the State for dependants of persons fatally injured and makes provision for persons either injured totally or to a degree.

Another very important principle that goes with that is contained at the end of the Order in Rule 36, which states:

"Where compensation might be granted under this scheme, the Minister may, in his absolute discretion, either make or refuse to make such grants."

It should be understood, therefore, that any person who is injured by bombs dropped deliberately or by accident in this country or by any form of war action in this country has no legal right whatever to compensation under this order. The grants contemplated, although they are set out in detail, are entirely ex gratia. The Minister reserves to himself—why he does it I cannot quite understand—the right to refuse to compensate. It seems extraordinary that, under the Damage to Property Act, it is provided specifically that a person whose property is injured can go to the courts, while a widow whose husband has been killed by a bomb dropped from an aeroplane has no right to go to the courts at all. She makes application to the Minister and, under Rule 36, which I have read, the Minister may, it would appear, entirely refuse to grant compensation.

The order deals with two distinct things—with disablement and fatal injury. In regard to disablement, it provides that a maximum figure of 30/- a week is payable. That figure applies to a single man, and to a married man no matter how many dependents he may have. Therefore, the maximum figure obtainable by a married man totally disabled, with a wife and five or six or even ten children, is 30/- a week. Not only is that the maximum he can get from the State, but elaborate precautions are taken in this order to ensure that he can get nothing else either from his employer or any form of local or public funds. I will deal with that later. I do not understand by what process the Minister arrives at the conclusion that an employer should not be allowed to supplement the very meagre State grant in this case. So much for disablement. With regard to compensation for fatal injury, the maximum sum that goes to the dependents, the wife and children, is £600. It may be considerably less, but that is the maximum contemplated by the order, less any sums which may at the date of death be due to the State and less any sums granted ex gratia by an employer.

The Minister will agree that these terms are not generous. I do not think they are just or well thought out. The order contemplates a flat rate of compensation and ignores all differences of earning power. It is quite unlike the Acts which regulate compensation for civil injury—for example, in the case of a person run down by a motor car. In that case there are what are called Lord Campbell's Acts, where compensation is based upon the loss occasioned by the death or injury of the person concerned in the accident.

This order contemplates a flat rate —the same compensation, and very meagre compensation—for everybody independent of overhead expenses, independent of commitments, independent of his children's prospects before he was killed. It is based upon the Workmen's Compensation Acts. The Workmen's Compensation Act of 1906 was, of course, a substantial change in English law. It has been amended since—I think we had an amendment here in 1932—and the figure of 30/- a week for the person totally disabled is, I think, taken from that. But the Workmen's Compensation Acts are now recognised as inadequate and anomalous. Frequently attention is drawn in the courts by the judges to the provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Acts which make it difficult to arrange the compensation on a rational or equitable basis.

In olden times the doctrine of common employment—as lawyers call it—obtained; that is to say, if I were injured by a person in the same employment, the employer had no liability whatever. In fact, the view taken of a workman was that, if he were injured, fatally or otherwise, that was too bad; but no liability fell on the employer, and the widow or crippled man was left to the workhouse or the charity of his fellows. The Workmen's Compensation Act is an improvement —but not a very substantial improvement. I think everybody recognises that, even to deal with the things for which it was intended, it needs substantial amendment. I want to suggest that the adoption of the Workmen's Compensation Act rules and sums for these particular persons is what I might call a lazy solution of this matter. It was there to hand and was accepted, taken and put in.

There is no analogy whatever between a person injured by a war machine and one injured in employment. The employer is one individual or a firm, responsible only for a limited number of people. There is no analogy at all between the liability of the State for its citizens and the liability of an employer for his employees. It is a handy scheme for the Minister to adopt, but it is quite inequitable and unsuitable. I suggest that the war has made many changes and has made people change their ideas in regard to various matters. In the present circumstances, it would have been much more enterprising and much more just to devise a scheme to deal with this kind of personal damage. I might recall to the Minister's mind, en passant, that after 1916, when funds were collected to compensate widows and men who had suffered imprisonment or wounds, both the National Aid Fund and the White Cross Fund made a distinction between persons from the point of view of their earning powers. Similar minimum regulations for compensation for wounds pensions recognise differences between officers and men.

I understand that British Army allowances, since conscription, have different scales for different persons, according to their overhead costs, their educational commitments for their children and so on. So much for the principle. I see no analogy whatever between the Workmen's Compensation Act, which is applied in this case, and the situation which the order is intended to meet. I think that the principle is thoroughly bad and that we need a different one. If we are to have a different one, I suggest that it should be based on Lord Campbell's Act, that earning capacity should be recognised to some extent and that compensation should bear some relation to the actual loss.

Since I shall have no other opportunity of doing so, may I put to the Minister some detailed points with reference to this matter? Section 8 of the order sets out the rate of compensation for disablement. It appears that, in the case of a non-earner aged 18 years or over, the total amount of compensation is to be 18/-. I wonder if that puts the non-earning widow and the earning widow in completely different positions. It seems to me that it does. Eighteen shillings is the maximum that can be got and one cannot claim from any other source. The non-earning widow is at present receiving 10/- widow's pension. If, unfortunately, she is totally disabled, the amount rises to 18/- under this order and her children's allowances continue, as before, under the Widows' Pension Acts. On the other hand, if a widow who happens to be an earner —a school teacher whose husband is dead and who is supporting a family; a doctor or a nurse—is totally disabled, her income drops to 30/-, no matter what it was before, no matter how many children she has and no matter what her liabilities may be. That seems to me to be unfair.

Section 9 (2) of this order provides that when a person is granted compensation, after the qualifying injury, he cannot receive any other pay, pension, or allowance from unemployment assistance or otherwise or any sum paid by his employer which would bring him to a higher figure than the figure contemplated by this order. I fail completely to understand why that should be so. Why should an employer be prevented from recognising the good services of an employee who may have been a long time in his service? As I understand this order, the employee of a firm like Guinness could not get any compensation from the firm which would bring him to a figure greater than that contemplated by this order nor could his widow receive such compensation or pension, if he were to die. It is characteristic of the Department of Finance, if I may say so from long acquaintance, that the Workmen's Compensation Act is adopted in its entirety when it is against the interests of the claimant, but is not so adopted when it favours him. Under the Workmen's Compensation Act a man can get compensation and can also receive any amount which his employer may choose to give him.

Under this order, a man cannot get anything extra without having that money taken out of the State grant. The State considers the amount given and the State benefits accordingly. Of course, that can be evaded and avoided, but it cannot be evaded or avoided by big firms such as Guinness, to which I have referred. I do not understand why the word employer is put in there. I could understand the Minister saying that, after all, compensation from State funds comes from the same source, and that, therefore, the total amount to be got from local and State funds should be so and so. That is arguable. One might say that the amount was small, but the principle would be sound. But why an employer who wants to recognise an employee's service should be prevented from doing so, as he is under this section, I cannot understand.

Section 10 of the order deals with payment of medical fees. It has one very peculiar repercussion which I do not think has been provided for. Section 10 provides that the Minister may, out of the compensation paid, make a payment of £25 to a medical practitioner or hospital, or, presumably, divide it between them. But take the case of a child under 14 years of age. In the case of a child under 14 years who is injured, no compensation becomes payable until the child attains its 14th birthday. That is an extraordinary provision. How is a child of eight who is injured to be maintained between eight years and 14 years? If, as we must unfortunately contemplate, the child is in need of medical and surgical attention, how is that attention to be paid for eight, six, five or two years? The maximum figure appears to be £25. I do not know if the Minister can enlighten us and say that the matter has been seen to and that this is his real decision. I doubt very much if that decision would have been reached if the situation, as I put it, had been adverted to.

With regard to Part 3 of the order, which deals with compensation in fatal cases, it is contemplated that members of the family may be dependants. There is one notable exception to members of the family which, I think, is included in other cases, the adopted child. No provision is made here for the adopted child. I think such provision should be made. When the point is made to the Minister he will, probably, agree because everybody knows cases of people who have adopted a child legally.

Minister for Finance (Mr. O Ceallaigh)

There is no legal adoption in this country.

Mr. M. Hayes

I know that there is no legal adoption here but we all know cases in which a child has been adopted practically and morally. The people concerned have taken all steps necessary to support the child and it could easily be established that the child was entirely dependent upon them. The income-tax authorities recognise the responsibility of the foster parents. I think an adopted child should be recognised under this order because, if the breadwinner is killed, the adopted child is just as much at a loss as if it were actually the child of the deceased. I should like to see included, though I know it is not included in the Workmen's Compensation Act, provision for an aunt or an uncle because it is a fairly common thing here to have a nephew supporting an aunt. If a nephew be killed, the dependency of the aunt should be recognised, provided it can be proved.

We have another peculiar provision in Section 21. I had some difficulty in believing my own reading of the section, and I have a sort of lingering hope that my reading of it may not have been right. It appears to me that if the dependant of a deceased person dies before payment has been made, that dependant will not be included in the compensation granted. I do not understand that at all. Surely payment should be made from the happening of the injury and on the basis of the circumstances as they were on that date. Dependency should be recognised from that date until the date of the death of the dependant child or adult. It seems to me extraordinary that, if there are five children, if a claim is made and one or two years elapse before payment of the claim, one of the children dying a year and eleven months after the injury takes place and the Minister making his award on the following day, no award can be made for the child who died although it had to be supported for a year and eleven months. One wonders what provision there is to meet the expense of supporting the child in that period. Again, this is taking the simplest book-keeping line, just as the Revenue Commissioners often prefer an income-tax of 7/6 to an income-tax of 7/3, because a tax of 7/3 is hard to calculate. They never leave it at 7/- instead of 7/3 because it is handier. Similarly the figure here is handier, but it seems to be entirely inequitable and wrong. Section 22 appears to mean, although I am very sure it does not, that the medical attendants and the undertaker will share all the compensation in respect of a person who leaves no dependants. I am sure the Ministry of Finance will amend that if that is the proper interpretation of the section, but the other matter is much more important to amend.

Section 26 (b) provides that

"if any ex gratia payment has been made by the employer of such person on account of such injury the Minister may withhold or reduce any compensation payable under this scheme in respect of such injury.”

What is the equitable justification for that? What justification is there considering the meagre terms that are given under the order? If a widow is going to get £600 for herself and her six children, what justification is there for taking out of that £600 the £50 or £60 which the employer of her husband may have given her as an ex gratia payment? I do not understand that position and I have not had much time to look through it but there are many cases where a person gets a year's salary in such circumstances. There may be even a statutory right to a year's salary in some cases. If a civil servant has a statutory right to get a year's salary, he will get this compensation also but if a person has not a statutory right to a payment of that kind, and the employer, recognising the circumstances, makes a payment out of his own pocket, then the Minister may subtract that amount from the amount of the compensation awarded. That seems to me to be an invidious proposal and I do not understand it at all. Remember the employer who makes this grant has to pay income-tax on it. The State does not lose anything on it at all. The State permits a great many inequalities but that it should endeavour to benefit by the generosity of an employer to the widow of an employee or possibly the employee himself, is something that is very difficult to understand.

In Section 29 of the order a very different principle, of course, is applied. If anybody gives you anything the State will take it, but if you owe anything to the State, the State will also take that. Section 29 is similar to a provision which we had in the Damage to Property Act. Section 29 provides that the State will get its pound of flesh from the widow of a person who has been killed by war action. It seems to be an extraordinary situation and a great contrast with Section 26 (b). If an employer gives you anything the State takes it and the State makes sure that if you owe the Government anything, even if you have your income-tax paid up to the last period, the State will take out of the very meagre compensation whatever other income-tax has accrued between the period of the last payment of income-tax and the period at which compensation is paid. That smacks too much of the Shylock method. After all, take the case of a person who was liable for income-tax, an earner with a good earning capacity. He may have practically no property. He is killed by a bomb. The compensation granted to his dependents is very small but out of this, whatever it is, the State makes sure that it will get whatever amount of income-tax is due. That seems to me extraordinary.

I do not want to stress this matter further, but I should like to hear from the Minister something about these various provisions. I should like to know why in circumstances which have no analogy whatever to workmen's compensation, the principles of the Workmen's Compensation Act were adopted. I should like to suggest that it is not envisaging the problem in the correct way to take such an extraordinarily inadequate scheme as the scheme of the Workmen's Compensation Act and apply it to civilians who are injured. I do not think any citizen would object—any citizen who survived with his health and his earning capacity unimpaired—to seeing proper compensation given to persons who presumably will be in a minority because this, like the Damage to Property Compensation Scheme, contemplates a state of neutrality. I do not think any citizen would object to seeing his less fortunate fellow-citizens who have been injured put into the best possible position they can be put. It would be much better if the principle were adopted of recognising a man's earning capacity than to take this flat rate scheme, which is unjust and inequitable. I should like to put it to the Minister that the order is one which could easily be substantially improved on reconsideration. Whether the actual basic rates are improved or not, there are many things in the order which could be improved without any substantially increased expenditure to the State.

Mr. Douglas

I beg to second the motion moved by Senator Hayes. I agree very largely with what he says and I should like to hear the Minister dealing with the points made. I am not quite sure, however, that I agree with him that this is a motion simply brought forward for the purpose of having it discussed. As far as I am concerned, I should be prepared to vote for the motion because I am convinced that this order provides no equitable method of dealing with the problem with which it purports to deal. To my mind, this method of dealing with people who may find themselves in our front line in the World War is miserable, to say the least of it; I am not sure that it is not dangerous viewed from a broader standpoint. I want to draw the attention of the House to this contrast. It is only a very short time since we spent a considerable time debating a Bill to provide compensation for damage to property. That was brought in, as it should be brought in a democratic country, by means of a Parliamentary measure. It was debated, amended, and, at any rate, received full discussion. That dealt with property; this with life. This order provides compensation for people who may lose their lives and leave dependants or compensation for people who may be more or less permanently disabled, possibly disabled for life. What do we do for them? For all our democracy, we have an emergency order made by the Executive which does not even provide a statutory right to compensation.

There is a statutory right when we are dealing with property but no statutory right when we are dealing with what I think is fundamentally more important than property, the question of the welfare of human beings. What do we find in it? As Senator Hayes has pointed out, it is simply an optional scheme. I have no doubt that the present Minister intends to provide compensation in each case which is proved to the satisfaction of the officials, but this is not a matter solely for the Department of Finance nor for the Minister for Finance. It is a question of our responsibility as members of Parliament representing the citizens of the State. It is not a matter of saying the Minister for Finance might have been more generous or the Department might have provided a more generous or a better scheme. That is not enough. Parliament and the people of this country are responsible for the way they are going to treat the individuals who may find themselves in the front line. I am convinced that this is the wrong way to do it. Now I did not get a copy of the Dáil debate yet. It had not arrived and I have not read last week's debate. I did read a newspaper report and I was left with the impression that the attitude of the Minister for Finance was something like this, that he would be extremely happy if it were possible to act more generously but having to face the present financial position he regretted that it was not possible to do so.

I think it is quite possible with the present attitude of the people, which I can only characterise as apathy, that if I were Minister for Finance I might take the same attitude. For that reason I am not in any way attacking him or his Department. I believe there is extraordinary apathy on the part of the people—apathy as to the world position of which we are a very small part. I do not think we realise what is happening in the world, but I am convinced, as the very existence of this order and the previous Bill for compensation shows, that although we may unitedly endeavour to keep out of this war, we cannot keep away from the possible effects of it. We do not know whether they may be small or large, but we do know we are asking our people to stand together and to take certain risks. What do we do in this order? We say to the people: you join the Army or some other service that may take you away from your home and this is the way we will treat your dependants.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There is nothing about the Army in this measure.

Mr. Douglas

I know, but I am saying that in effect we are saying to men who join the Army and other State services that this is the measure of treatment we give to their dependants and to the people. I do not know how the Army or the A.R.P. services are to be dealt with and I am not dealing with them, because it would be out of order to do so in this debate. We know there is a good deal of apathy and a good deal of failure to realise the position. I want to draw the attention of the House to what I believe to be the fact, that there is a principle involved in all this. In the last Great War men were sent out from various countries. Some of them that came back were permanently disabled. Is it not well known that all over the world people who came back after the last war were forgotten, and left with a miserable pittance? There was hardly any work for them. That was not confined to any one country and I am not at all sure that that was not responsible for the spirit that made another war almost inevitable. We may say we are not immediately responsible for that, but we are responsible to this extent, that we should see that right principles are adopted in our little corner of this world.

I am convinced that it is not a right principle to base compensation for those in our front line in this way. Can anyone deny that civilians have been in most countries more in the front line than the armies? That may not apply to Russia, but it does apply to a good many countries. The civilian is now just as liable to be in the front line as the military. I believe that you cannot deal with this on the basis that this emergency order covers all the liability we may have to those who have lost their lives. It should be withdrawn, but perhaps not immediately and a measure should be brought in and Parliament should face the matter fairly and decide what is the reasonable method. I do not think you can fix it at 30/- a week. A maximum of £600 invested in State loan will give less than £20 a year income. That is the maximum income which presumably can be obtained only by a dependant with other dependants. What can you do on an income of £20 a year?

The effect of this particular order is not fully known. People know vaguely that the amount is 30/-. If we look across the Channel we find that they were not able to continue with promises of small payments. They have had to accept a very considerably higher standard. What is happening here is that numbers of our people—whether we agree with them or not—whom we honour—went to join forces outside this country. A very large number, whether they found it necessary to do so or because they wanted to, have gone to earn their livelihood in the neighbouring country and thereby subjected themselves to certain risks, but are entitled to certain rights of compensation. Is it wise to say that if an Irish citizen goes across to England and gets caught by a bomb the dependants would be very much better treated than we would treat them if he were struck by a chance bomb here? I cannot deal with the position of people in the forces because that is not in the order, though I think the compensation should not be less.

We will be told and with very considerable reason: Look at the financial position. Can the country take more taxation? I do not think it can. I believe we are going to face in our personal capacity and as a State one of the most difficult years. There will have to be cutting and it may be that every one of us will have to do with drastic cuts. It may be that we will have to do with a much less expensive Government. I suggest that it is not safe and that we cannot afford to tell people that those who come through this struggle safely can go right ahead as before, and that those who do not come through safely are to be left to be compensated on the basis that is provided in this order. I am giving a purely personal point of view on which I feel rather strongly. Senator Hayes has dealt with most of the points of this order in his criticisms and I do not want to repeat them, but I draw attention to the fact that, if I read this properly, a child under 14, who is permanently disabled, is treated by the State as somebody for whom the State has no responsibility at all. He is out of the scheme, unless I misread No. 5 of Article 8. I hope I am wrong.

Again, I would like to emphasise that it seems to me that if there are private individuals, employers or others, who are able to supplement this amount, the State should encourage and not discourage them. I think that principle is also wrong. There is a provision made here which, I think, is a perfectly right one though it may cause some hardship. I refer to No. 33. It provides that you cannot assign the right to compensation or the compensation you may obtain for the purpose of meeting a debt:

"No payment under this scheme shall be capable of being taken in execution or otherwise alienated by process of law for the discharge of any debts or liabilities of the person to whom such payment is due."

If we have any bombing here and somebody, through kindness, lends something to someone who has been hurt pending their getting compensation, under this article that loan cannot be secured by means of any legal claim. I agree that it should not be but, when you come to the State's claim, whereas the private person who does a kindness and who advances some money cannot get any security, the attitude of the State, expressed in Article 29, towards any claims it may have is totally different. I think that is completely wrong, whereas I think the other is right, even though it may cause some hardship. It is typical to some extent of the whole attitude. I think the attitude I adopt is quite different from that taken by a very considerable number of people in this country, I think it is quite likely that I am in a complete minority but I believe that the world of to-day is learning that individuals who may suffer as a result of this appalling catastrophe with which the world is faced cannot be left simply to struggle along afterwards. I know that here and there all over the world statesmen and others are at any rate making promises and realising that the principles of lease and lend and all these other things will have to be extended to the rehabilitation of persons in their homes and taking care of those who may be left. I, personally, fear that if this order gets to be understood —as it will, slowly and gradually—there will be intense dissatisfaction in the knowledge that our standard is one of the lowest in the world.

It is provided here that if a claim is made by the State to any other Government the Minister may—it does not say he must—pay to the claimants of any approved claim an amount not exceeding the amount which may be received from the other Government. I want to draw your attention to the position. Supposing a British plane accidentally comes down here and does a certain amount of damage, the Minister will presumably be entitled to make a claim. On what basis is he going to claim? Presumably he would claim on the basis of the amount which would be paid if that person was living in England and had been accidentally injured by a plane in England. That, to the best of my information, is considerably higher than what we are providing here. I am told it is more than double. Is not that a strange inconsistency? I am dealing with one simple case, and I do not think it will give any offence to Great Britain because we know it has occurred. I do honestly feel that the whole principle of this thing requires consideration, not simply an amendment of the details. For that reason I second, and intend, if it is put to a division, to vote for, the resolution proposed by Senator Hayes.

Mr. Quirke

I was not here, unfortunately, when Senator Hayes opened his speech and I am not quite sure whether or not he proposes to put the matter to a division, but I feel that there is a good deal to be said for Senator Hayes' point of view and, while I agree with some of what Senator Douglas has said in support of it, there is a lot in what he said with which I do not agree. We cannot look very lightly on this matter and, when I say that, I mean that we cannot take the attitude that we should go headlong into expenses the limits of which we cannot attempt to estimate at the present time. We must remember that the taxpayer may have to be called on to foot the whole bill. We have had several speeches in the past—and rightly so, I suppose—from Senator Douglas objecting to taxation being placed on individuals and on industries to meet various expenses, and it is quite possible that we may have further speeches from Senator Douglas when this bill will have to be paid. However, as I say, I am in agreement with a good deal of what has been said and I would appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter altogether, and perhaps, if I may say so, remould the order nearer to the heart's desire. I believe something could be done even if greater expense had to be incurred and I believe that a good case has been put up for at least an alteration in the order.

Mr. Foran

I think this is another instance of the failure of trying to legislate by order. Apparently the Bill which was introduced has given fairly general satisfaction because all Parties had an opportunity of giving their views on it and, so far as I know, there is no grievance. But here we have, as Senator Douglas very properly put it, more importance attached to property than to human life. When we are dealing with property we institute legislation. When we are dealing with human life we make an order, which is not a very substantial thing to go on and the only opportunity we have of giving our views on these matters is that provided by Senator Hayes' motion. I am not at all in agreement with a lot of what Senator Hayes has said. For instance, I would not at all agree that compensation ought to be on the basis of the social standing of the person killed or injured. I think all citizens of the State who may be killed or injured by accidental bombing are entitled to equal treatment and only equal treatment. I am not at all in favour of the arguments used by Senator Hayes, but in the course of his remarks he contended, and I do not know how far he was accurate, that a person receiving this compensation was denied the right to obtain compensation or allowances from any other source. I hope that is not true, because I have in mind a very large number of people who contribute to national health insurance. If these people are incapacitated, surely they are entitled to draw their benefits from that organisation, and, similarly, in the case of employers who may have sickness or injury funds for their employees, surely the relatives should be allowed to receive that compensation?

I am anxious to hear the Minister on that point, particularly in relation to people who have been paying contributions to national health insurance. If they are going to pay them a miserable 30/- a week, do they intend to deprive them of their statutory rights to national health insurance, because if they are permanently injured, they are entitled to the same amount of benefit? I hope that the argument of Senator Hayes is not correct, and that the Minister will be able to tell us that people who have contributed to National Health, or other provident societies, are entitled to the benefits accruing from the making of these payments, and that notice will not be taken of them in allotting compensation which, I believe, is 30/- a week.

Mrs. Concannon

I would like to say that I am in agreement with Senator Quirke in asking the Minister to give consideration to the arguments which have been put forward here. I know it is not easy to devise a suitable plan —it was a new danger sprung upon us —or to arrange quickly to alleviate the sufferings of the victims. There are also the difficulties that Senator Douglas mentioned of the people who have suffered in the front line. We might all be in the front line and, therefore, it is not possible for the State to plan with the same degree of accuracy, or the same approach to accuracy, as if the danger were limited. We have to bear that in mind and try to understand the state of mind of the Minister when he approached this problem of compensation, but the discussion has shown that a great many hardships, a great many snags, have been encountered in the proposals embodied in the order and what I wish to do is to join my voice with that of Senator Quirke and the other Senators in asking the Minister to reconsider the whole position.

Miss Kennedy

I am entirely in favour of what Senator Douglas and Senator Hayes have said with regard to this order. I had hoped that a Bill to deal with the matter would be introduced, instead of an order, so that we would have some opportunity for discussion on it as we had on a previous Bill relating to property damage which, in my opinion, was not so important as this one. I quite realise that the Minister is always up against the question of finding the money and everybody is willing to criticise when the Budget is introduced, and practically all the year round as well, with regard to taxation, but I hope sincerely that the sum involved will not be very extensive, and even if we have other visits or incidents of the same nature, it would not come as a big burden on the whole State when it is a State charge. We have had experience of the amount of work that was done here and the amount of compensation that was issued entirely voluntarily, in the last 25 years. One point I would like to make is this: As far back as 1916, 32/6 could be allowed by an entirely voluntary association to a single man, 30/- now, in my opinion, would be entirely inadequate to meet the present cost of living, even if a widow had no dependants at all. I also ask the Minister to reconsider the whole order, and I support Senator Mrs. Concannon and Senator Quirke in urging him to try to find a solution to help the unfortunate people affected by that affair.

Mr. Campbell

I desire to support the motion. Both Senator Hayes and Senator Douglas made excellent cases for the revocation of this order. I think the Minister ought to reconsider the whole position in regard to compensation, and more particularly that section that any grant made by an employer would be deducted from the ultimate compensation awarded to the victims of the different forms of injury specified under this order. I do not altogether agree with Senator Foran that he should not have regard to the position of a person awarded compensation under the order. I think that some regard would have to be given to the position of the person so injured. In my opinion, a strong case has been made, not for revocation, but for the reconsideration of this order, and I would like to add my voice to those we have already heard in favour of that. The Minister has, hitherto, been sympathetically disposed to requests from this House, and I hope on the present occasion he will find it convenient to reconsider the whole position, and at least to make alterations that will be more acceptable to the people, more particularly in that section which provides that any sum given by an employer by way of compensation should be deducted from the final amount. That is a peculiar principle to establish in an order of this kind, and I think it is altogether outside the scope of the consideration of a Minister. I hope he will give consideration to the matter of the whole order.

Mr. O'Ceallaigh

I think it is fairly well accepted in the House here that the Minister for Finance, more than any other Minister, is fair game for attacks on all occasions. He is attacked when he brings in his Budget providing for the cash necessary for the carrying on of the institutions of Government and of the State, and this year there was no shortage of circumstances for complaints of a grievous kind around the time that the Budget was discussed here, but no more than when it was discussed in the other House. Also, when the Compensation for Damage to Property Bill was under discussion here, the House will remember the not very generous encomiums which were passed upon the Minister for Finance for his scheme of compensation. It was mean, ungenerous, skinflint, and God knows what other adjectives of the kind were used.

As Minister for Finance I have to remember that we may have to pay all this compensation. Bearing that in mind, the Minister may have to put on additional taxation. Since I became Minister for Finance I have never hesitated to say that we are a heavily taxed country at present. Our taxes— income-tax, direct and indirect taxes and the taxes on industry that have been referred to already, and those which we have in a variety of other ways—have brought us almost to the limit of taxation, as far as the number of taxable things is concerned. Everybody here, no matter how small his amount of tax—direct or indirect, and particularly direct—knows that position. Income-tax is heavy, and probably it will be heavier. That is what I have to bear in mind. It is all very well for individuals to get up and say that we should be more generous, that we should treat these people with greater liberality; but the same people, including Senator Douglas, will be eloquent and vociferous in their denunciatory attacks upon me when I come to the House to ask for approval for a Bill to increase the taxation.

Nobody will be more eloquent on that subject than Senator Douglas. I am not saying that he is not sincere in asking for greater compensation for these people. I am not saying that he would not like to see these people get greater compensation: I believe he would, and that he is sincere in asking for it, but he should try to remember the other side of the story as well. He does not do that to-day, and will not do it when I have to ask for a heavier rate of taxation when the next Budget comes round. I cannot in justice claim for the scheme that it is a generous one, but we cannot put ourselves financially on a basis of comparison with the British. First of all, they are the richest nation in the world.

Mr. Foran

Why?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The British are the richest nation in the world.

Mr. Foran

At the moment?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

At the moment. There is no other nation or State or Empire which can compare with it— none of them. We cannot compare with them. We do not value the life of any citizen any less than the citizen of Britain is valued by that State or Empire. I would say the same with regard to any other country. There are people here as willing to give service and risk their lives—and they have proved it in the past—as any citizen of any other State. They risked them when there was no promise of compensation of any kind for the risks they ran and the dangers they brought. I would like to be thought as soft-hearted and generous even as Senator Douglas, but I have the responsibility of the State's finances on my shoulders and I have to think what the burden of injury to person and property may be upon the citizens of this State. One cannot measure it now. If we had any measuring stick to go by, perhaps we could afford to be more generous, but we do not know what it is likely to cost us. That is one of the greatest difficulties. We have suffered certain injuries to persons. We are dealing with personal injuries at present although the injuries to person took place a good many months ago, in some instances— I think in the North Strand there were over 20 lives lost, unfortunately, in that calamity—yet we have received only three applications up to the present for personal injury in cases where there was loss of life. Why there was delay I do not know. It is very hard, therefore, to get any measure of what the claims may be and what even in one year the final figure that we have to deal with may be.

I agree with Senator Hayes that there are items in this scheme which certainly do not show the Government or the Minister for Finance in a very generous and large-hearted light, but the Minister is not put there to be generous; he is put there to be the guardian of the nation's purse, though not to be ungenerous and certainly not to be unjust. If I were dealing personally with this matter from the Opposition side, like Senator Hayes, I would probably speak as he has spoken; and if he were in my position he would probably be more effective than I am in speaking of this.

Mr. M. Hayes

That is very disarming.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is my position. Attention has been called to certain paragraphs in the scheme. I went through this with the officials. It is based on the Workmen's Compensation Acts and embodies the principles laid down there. Senator Hayes says that these are out of date. Well, they are still the law of the land, and it is on that basis that workmen's compensation is paid. I think there is a great deal to be said for the point made by Senator Foran that you cannot take the earning capacity into consideration in paying compensation of this kind. Senator Foran described it as social distinction. It would be very difficult to have a scheme so elastic that you could take into consideration the earning capacity or social position of the individuals injured. The same principle would have to operate in the organisations that have offered services to the State, such as A.R.P., Local Defence Force and Local Security Force. I am not saying that it would be impossible to discriminate to some extent, but it would be very difficult and it would give rise to very great dissatisfaction in the various organisations.

As to the point raised by Senator Hayes and other Senators about deducting the amounts given by employers, that is in the Workmen's Compensation Act and it is also in the British scheme and in other schemes of the sort which I have seen. However, I am quite prepared to re-examine it. We cannot deprive people of their statutory right to national health insurance but I think the intention is that it should be deducted. I am prepared to look into that matter, too. This order is not, in precise legal parlance, a statute but it will have full statutory effect. Senator Hayes mentioned Rule 36. That is only put in to give the Minister discretion with regard to exaggerated or false claims.

Mr. M. Hayes

There is provision elsewhere in respect of false statements.

Mr. Douglas

Is Section 36 not intended to prevent the matter coming before the court?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is, certainly, not the intention under Section 36.

Mr. M. Hayes

Section 32 provides for the case of false declarations. The compensation is forfeited in these cases.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

In the order, the word "may" is used throughout but it is intended that that word will have the force of "must" and that the Minister will have to pay the compensation set out in the order. A question was asked by Senator Hayes about the amount to be paid for medical or hospital attention. The £25 referred to will be in addition to any compensation paid. That is one small item in respect of which we did not stick closely to the Workmen's Compensation Act. We have increased the amount which may be paid for medical or hospital fees. I am prepared to look into the question of the adopted child but I am afraid that our legal advisers will question our power to put that in, as there is no legal adoption in this country. I have an idea that I raised that question before when I was in the Department of Local Government and that I was told I had no power to put such a provision in because there was no such thing as legal adoption here. However, I am prepared to look into the matter again.

Senator Hayes and other Senators referred to the non-payment of compensation to children under 14 years. There, again, the principle underlying the scheme is that of the Workmen's Compensation Act. It was not usual to pay weekly benefit to children under 14 under that Act though medical benefit could be paid for injuries. The school-leaving age being 14 years, payment of compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act was not permitted until after 14 years.

Mr. M. Hayes

Is not that because they would not be at work?

Mr. Douglas

Children under 14 would not be employed.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Should not be employed.

Mr. M. Hayes

What is to happen a child of six years or eight years, who is injured, between that age and 14 years? Is there any provision for that?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

In normal circumstances, the parent would be expected to support the child.

Mr. M. Hayes

But the parent may be dead in this case.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The parent or guardian.

Mr. Douglas

Is there any provision for a guardian? I do not think that there is compensation for a guardian of children whose parents are dead.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Section 29 deals with moneys due to the State. We discussed that type of section fairly often both in the period of the last Government and this Government. In all these compensation Acts, there is a section providing for deduction of moneys due to the Government. Perhaps we adopted a bad precedent, but if the State is entitled to moneys I do not see why they should not be deducted.

Mr. Douglas

Why should that be done in the case of the State when it cannot be done in the case of any citizen?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Because it is the State. With Senator Douglas and others it is a case of taking out of the State anything that can be taken, but when it comes to asking that the State get the necessary money, one hears the other side of the story.

Liam O Buachalla

Is not the State always a preferential creditor?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Yes, under every Act of Parliament. I should not object to Senator Douglas's attitude if, when we came to look for extra taxation from industry, he would say the State must be carried on. But his attitude would then be entirely different. God help the Minister for Finance of this Government if the language of Senator Douglas could have any effect in hurting his feelings.

Mr. Douglas

I can return the compliment.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I knew Senator Douglas had, like myself, a pretty tough skin.

Mr. Douglas

I do not have to return the compliment in that case.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Being in the position of Minister, I must have regard to the state of our finances and to the demands that may be made upon us. I cannot, and do not, claim that this is a generous scheme. I am prepared to reconsider certain sections of it. We have to think of what the bill may amount to. If we had any idea of the full extent of our liabilities, we could measure the compensation——

Professor Johnston

How can you have any regard to your liabilities if you have no idea of their full extent?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

If we knew the full extent of our liabilities, we might, perhaps, be able to provide greater compensation. As things are, we do not know that tragedies may not be enacted any day or night similar to those enacted in recent months in the city and other parts of the country. A time may come when we may have, if the extent of our liabilities were to become greater than we know them to be now, even to revise this scale of compensation. I cannot promise that I can make any fundamental changes in the order, but with regard to certain sections of it to which Senators have called particular attention and where I think a case has been made for reconsideration, I am quite prepared to reconsider the matter and bring in a revised order.

Mr. Baxter

Perhaps in view of the position created now by the points raised by Senators on all sides of the House, and the Minister's own doubts about the justice of certain provisions in the order, it might be well to adjourn the debate. In the meantime the Minister can reconsider the order and see what actually can be done. Nobody wants to force the hands of the Minister, but, on the other hand, from every side of the House you have agreement amongst Senators that the case has not been fully met by the order as it stands. I think the Minister would be wise to reconsider it.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I could not promise to have the amendments for the next meeting of the Seanad. I do not know when the amended order will be made.

Mr. Baxter

The adjournment need not be to the next meeting of the Seanad.

Mr. McEllin

I think the motion has been dealt with fairly by the Minister and as it does not stand in the same category as an amendment to a Bill, I think it would be stupid to adjourn the consideration of it. The Minister has given the House all the details he possibly could.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is it proposed now to adjourn the debate?

Mr. Baxter

Before Senator Hayes replies, I would suggest that the matter should be adjourned to a date when it would be convenient for the Minister to make a further statement or to indicate that he had come to certain conclusions on the various points raised. I think no purpose would be served by continuing the debate now. Senator Hayes, I am sure, would agree that further consideration of the debate should be adjourned.

Mr. M. Hayes

What the Minister has promised is in effect some very slight amendments but after all one would like to see them made. Senator Baxter's idea is that we might be able to see the proposed new order before the 14th January, the date of the next meeting of the Seanad. We could then conclude the debate in the light of the new order. It is a matter of indifference to me; I am prepared to conclude now.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

If there has to be a new order that would be brought before us in any case.

Mr. M. Hayes

It depends on the Minister. If he does not make a new order, we are precluded from discussing this matter further.

Liam O Buachalla

If the Minister makes amendments to this order will it mean that a new order will have to be made?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Yes.

Liam O Buachalla

Can the matter not be discussed then on the new order?

Mr. M. Hayes

Not necessarily. The new order does not need discussion but we could finish this debate in the light of the two orders, the principal one and the amending order. I am prepared to finish the debate now. I should love to deal with the question of the social distinction as between trade unionists and other classes of the community on which the Minister attributed certain views to Senator Foran.

Agreed, that the debate stand adjourned to the next sitting of the Seanad.