I do not claim for this Bill any more than is in it. Senator Hawkins opened up the debate and tried to talk down the Bill for what was not in it. When the Government was formed, one of the points in its 12-point programme included a promise to improve the workmen's compensation code. Effect is being given to that promise in this Bill. There was also the promise of the Government, and an announcement by me to the effect, that there is a commission to be established—as a matter of fact, it is now in the process of being established—to inquire into the whole code of workmen's compensation. From the remarks of the Senators here and from the discussion in the Dáil, it seems very desirable that such a commission should be set up. Many Senators have mentioned snags which I did not and will not, attempt to correct in this Bill. My only intention is to improve the code in certain respects and to do it as quickly as I can.
This Bill, briefly, is designed to raise the weekly allowance from £2 10s. as basic to £4 10s. as maximum. It is of interest to mention that the £4 10s. a week as maximum will not be applied to every single worker. It must be realised that a man's previous earnings must have been at the rate of £6 a week and that those under £6 get merely 75 per cent. of their weekly earnings. It means that the worker in receipt of £8, £9 or £10 a week does not get 75 per cent. of his earnings but gets merely £4 10s., so I do not think we are as extravagant as some people represent this Bill to be. It must be remembered that workers in the low brackets—forestry workers and agricultural workers—are not getting this £4 10s. per week to which certain people take exception.
This Bill is designed to raise the amount of the lump sum to be paid to dependents in the event of the death of the injured workman. Again, I do not think anyone can say we are being extravagant. The maximum is now raised to £1,800. I do not think anybody could claim that £1,800, as compensation to a wife and children for the death of the breadwinner, is too big.
The Bill also raises the age for juvenile dependents from 15 to 16. I decided to do this to bring the age limit more or less into line with the age limit for dependents under the general social welfare codes. This Bill also cuts out the three-day waiting period in respect of injured workmen, a workman whose injury lasts for more than two weeks. Up to this the worker would have to remain injured or unable to work for a period of four weeks before he was paid for the first three days. Now that period is cut to two weeks. This Bill also cuts out the dependents' allowance, which I shall deal with later on.
Many of those on my right-hand side here take exception, in a back-handed sort of way, to the fact that workmen's compensation is now being raised to the maximum of £4 10s. per week. They are crying salt tears, in my opinion, because the other social welfare allowances are too low. I appreciate more than anyone in the Seanad that these allowances are too low, but I think I have given an indication—and that the Government has given an indication—of the road which we intend to travel, inasmuch as the Government has got over the first big fence in the improvement in social welfare by the increase that has lately been given in old age pensions, widows' and orphans' pensions and blind pensions. The Government is pledged, and will fulfil its promise, in respect of sickness benefit, disability benefit, unemployment assistance and unemployment insurance.
There never has been any attempt by any Government to relate workmen's compensation to social welfare benefit and I am not proposing to do that in this Bill. We have had workmen's compensation since 1897, when we had no social welfare benefit at all, no old age pensions, sickness benefit, disability benefit, unemployment assistance or unemployment insurance. I am sticking to the code of workmen's compensation as established in 1897 and I do not pretend to do any more than that. The principle of the code is to compensate an injured workman for loss of earnings and no more. I am merely doing that and the increase now up to a maximum of £4 10s. is only just in step with the increase in wages that has occurred over the years.
The dependents' allowance is something to which I took exception when the 1953 Act was going through, and to which the members of the present Government took exception then, and this is the first opportunity we have got to change it. I do not think there should be any difference between the rate of compensation paid to a single man as against a married man— because, as I said, the basis of the whole code is to compensate for loss of earnings. I reiterate what I said in the beginning. If we were to adopt that principle in respect of workmen's compensation we might well find ourselves where employers would find themselves in adopting the same practice in the employment of men and in the payment of wages.
Section 8 of this Bill and the Bill as introduced into the Dáil was a serious bone of contention. My reaction, when I came to improve the Workmen's Compensation Act, was to give to the injured workman the same right that was, and still is, enjoyed by the employer. The employer at present has the right—and has it since 1934—to redeem these weekly payments. He redeemed them only, in my opinion, when it was to his own advantage and workers have suffered since 1934 in the matter of lump sum payments. Cheques have been dangled before their eyes and lump sum agreements have been suggested to them. In many cases, in the majority of cases, the unfortunate workmen, through force of circumstances, have accepted these lump sum payments—which have been realised to be inadequate indeed. I decided that if the employer had that right the worker should have a similar right. For that reason, I included in the original Bill a section which was practically identical with Section 27 of the 1934 Act, which gave that right to an employer.
I was perfectly frank with the Dáil when I said that I was not particularly happy about the section as it then stood. I asked Dáil Éireann to give me their honest opinion on it. Unfortunately, I did not get a very full opinion, nor was I able to clarify my own mind on Section 8 by the discussion that we had on the Second Reading in the Dáil. For that reason, I took the initiative myself on the Committee Stage and I introduced an amendment to delete the section. By that device, if I may call it so, I provoked a discussion on Section 8, that is, on the right of the worker to redeem the weekly allowances. The majority opinion in the Dáil was that a section such as has been included in this Bill would be desirable and that the present form of it would be more desirable than the form of Section 8 in the original Bill.
Senator Douglas is worried about the section and mentioned in the course of his remarks that possibly I should have consulted certain interested sections of the community before I attempted to reinclude Section 8. I would like to assure Senator Douglas that, when the Bill was published originally, I consulted certain sections who were interested in that particular section. They were worried about the period of six months after which a worker could redeem. I suggested to them that possibly after two years a worker should have the right to redeem and they agreed with me unanimously.
They were also worried about sub-section (3) of the original Section 8, which gave the right to redeem to a worker in the case of partial and nonpermanent incapacity. They suggested that it could not be operated and that I should cut it out entirely from the Bill. I left it in at that stage but it was the opinion of the Dáil that it should be taken out. The general opinion of the Seanad would seem to indicate that it would be undesirable to reintroduce such a sub-section.
Perhaps I could allay some of the fears expressed by Senator Douglas in respect of Section 8. I should like to point out that "total permanent incapacity" means incapacity not only in respect of the particular trade or occupation which the injured workman follows but in respect of any occupation. It even includes his being able to work for himself, to be self-employed so to speak. I think the courts are well fitted to determine whether or not a man after two years' incapacity would be able to take up remunerative employment. However, if Senator Douglas wishes to move an amendment to Section 8 in order to clarify his own mind and the mind of the House, I have no objection but I would like to assure him that total permanent incapacity is in respect of any occupation whatsoever.
Other Senators mentioned the probable cost. I did not mention costs in my Second Reading speech, either here or in the Dáil, because it has never been mentioned in the introduction of Workmen's Compensation (Amending) Bills but, for the benefit of the Seanad, I should like to say that it is estimated that the cost will be an extra 25 per cent. I do not think it would cripple industry or agriculture to have a 25 per cent. premium increase for the benefit of an injured workman and for the benefit of a workman who met his death through his employment. I am informed—I have not firm figures for this—that it will cost employers, those who insure and those who do not insure, an extra £450,000. That spread over industry and agriculture would not, I think, impose the crushing burdens forecast by some Senators to-day.
I think these were the main points raised. Perhaps we can go into the section in more detail on the Committee Stage but I want to assure the House that I am as conscious as any of the Senators about the delay in the establishment of this commission. I want to assure them that I hope to have the commission established and the personnel announced in a very short time. I will press on them to send their findings to me, and, through me, to the Government within the shortest possible time.