Before the Senator says anything in regard to the amendment, would he like to read us the case of Shane O'Neill which he will find at page 118 of Shillman's book?
Social Welfare (Occupational Injuries) Bill, 1965: Report Stage (Resumed) and Final Stage.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 13:
In page 25, to delete lines 18 to 20, inclusive.
I do not propose to read that case. We are not now in a court of law but in a place where we are making law and where we ought to make good law.
The Senator quoted a number of other cases.
The Senator did not refer to this book at all, and I opened it for the purpose of correcting what the Minister had incorrectly stated and I gave the true quotation. I shall not go into that now.
I did not think the Senator would.
I repeat what a judge decided but there is no precedent in the legislation of this country —and I invited the Minister earlier to show if there was and even if there were I should deplore that it existed— to require a man to undergo a surgical operation for the purposes of qualifying, or continuing to qualify, for a particular benefit.
I oftentimes in this House referred to, and I shall continue, so long as the 1937 Constitution is in operation, to refer to the obligation of the Oireachtas to have regard to the provisions of this Constitution and not to enact anything which is invalid or repugnant to any part of it or to the Constitution in general.
I want to read Article 40, paragraph 3 for the edification of Senators opposite who evidently do not know what the Constitution means in this regard. It deals with fundamental rights and it says:
1º The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.
I should have thought it clear that one of the personal rights of the citizen was to decide whether or not he would submit himself to a surgical operation, that he could say: "I will not undergo that operation." That is what the Constitution says. The State shall defend, but it goes further than that in clear language. It says:
and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.
In this Bill we are not defending these rights; we are assailing and attacking them. We are saying to the workman who will not undergo the operation "If you do not undergo it we will starve you into submission for a period of six weeks."
Why did the Senator wait until now?
I waited until Committee Stage.
It has been like that for the past 20 years.
I am talking about what the courts decide. It is the first time in the history of this country that the Legislature decided under a specific enactment that "You will undergo a surgical operation and if you do not we will deprive you, your wife and children of workmen's compensation for a period of six weeks." That is what is involved in this legislation, and that is the principle which this House is being asked to decide upon tonight.
Our Constitution not only recognises personal rights and guarantees to respect them, but it goes the further distance of assuming an obligation to vindicate them. I do not think anyone for one moment can say that in paragraph (b) of this subsection, where we are requiring a man to submit himself to a surgical operation as a condition precedent to continuing to get workmen's compensation, we are defending or respecting or vindicating the personal rights of the injured workman. That is what is involved in this.
The Minister may say that this will operate only in respect of minor operations. That is not the point. The principle we are establishing here is an obligation upon any citizen who happens to be entitled to workmen's compensation or occupational injury benefit to submit himself to a surgical operation. The Minister loves precedents, and so does Senator Yeats. Senator Yeats referred to a decision of our courts. I cannot tell the House when it was arrived at. The Minister referred to the precedent created in Northern Ireland. There was another precedent created by the House of Lords which we got rid of long ago when we abolished appeals to the Privy Council.
We?
Yes, we got rid of it.
Against the strong opposition of the Senator's Party.
(Interruptions.)
I do not think that everything Fianna Fáil did was all wrong.
That is new.
The Minister thinks everything Fianna Fáil did was always right. I do not think everything Fianna Fáil did was all wrong.
(Interruptions.)
Perhaps we could get back to amendment No. 13. Senator O'Quigley must be allowed to make his speech without interruption.
The Minister is very fond of precedents. When it suits him he refers to the obnoxious Majority Report of the Commission on Workmen's Compensation because that is in the nature of a precedent for him.
(Interruptions.)
I am prepared to have Senator FitzGerald in full but not in part. I shall have the Majority Report in full but I shall not take it in part. When we referred to this on Committee Stage the Minister was away on the hunt again and his advisers unearthed for him section 17 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, and here was another precedent.
If this section is allowed to go through, and if we establish the precedent tonight that in order to obtain workmen's compensation a man must submit himself to a surgical operation, at a later stage the Minister, or some other Minister, will come in here and say: "Oh, but I have a precedent here. We did it in the Social Welfare (Occupational Injuries) Bill, 1965. What I am seeking to do now is what was done in 1966."
There is no suggestion that a surgical operation is precedent to obtaining workmen's compensation.
I said "as a condition precedent to continuing to get workmen's compensation".
No.
The Senator can read the record. I said it about two minutes ago. I said it was a condition precedent to continuing to get workmen's compensation. Read the record.
That is what is involved in this section. I am not prepared to say it should be a condition precedent. I am quite satisfied that is not defending, respecting or vindicating the personal rights of the workers of this country. The Minister has tried to get out of the difficulty in which he now finds himself by saying this will apply only to minor operations but I am told that in medical circles there is no special medical distinction between minor and major operations. For instance, I wonder would Senators opposite like to say whether an operation for the stiffening of an ankle or a knee joint which is causing pain because of arthritis is a major or a minor operation. I should love to be a schoolmaster and ask: "Hands up all who think it is a minor operation." I do not think anybody here would say that it is a minor operation but the courts in Northern Ireland thought that an operation for the stiffening of an ankle joint was a minor operation and that it was unreasonable for a man not to undergo such an operation. You then decide it is necessary for him to do so in order to relieve pain and prevent the onset of serious arthritis. That would be regarded as a minor operation. That is the kind of minor operation for which the Minister is prepared to make regulations as a condition in relation to payment out of the occupational injuries fund.
Earlier this evening I referred to the amendment, which was ruled out of order, in relation to the requirements of people to undergo medical treatment. I thought there were certain kinds of people who do not want to undergo certain types of medical treatment on religious grounds. I am told that Christian Scientists, who are a sect in this community and who are citizens of our country and have the same rights as we have, do not believe in either medical or surgical treatment, yet they can be required to undergo a minor operation according to the Minister or else they will be deprived of workmen's compensation. There are other people who, I think, fall into the category of homeopaths, who do not believe in the kind of treatment we believe in. They believe in herbs. If one of those people is asked by his doctor to undergo a course of cortisone, which it may be perfectly reasonable for him to undergo, and if that person does not undergo that treatment he will be disentitled to workmen's compensation. I can find nothing here based on rational grounds for having the medical or surgical treatment. If it is a matter of emotional or religious reasons then no difficulty will arise with regard to the Christian Scientist. If it is an emotional reason and the doctor says that he should have the operation and the Minister's doctor says that he should have the operation he could say: "I will not undergo the operation because I do not like it." The Minister has not in mind "good cause based on rational grounds having regard to medical science and medical evidence." That is the kind of evidence which has been produced to date in the cases that have been cited. There is, to my mind, a gross invasion of personal rights involved in this particular section.
The Minister and Senator Yeats referred to the Majority Report. Supposing we concede that Senator Yeats was right in his interpretation of what is contained in the Report, and that that was a correct interpretation of the recommendation made in the context of a determination by a court, which is quite a different thing from determination by an officer of the Minister, I would be quite prepared to consider the circumstances in which such matters might have been left to people who are trained and able to assess individual qualities. I very much doubt whether ultimately I would agree that a judge can say to a man: "If you do not have a surgical operation, I will cut off your workmen's compensation." If we were to allow that Senator Yeats was right, which of course he is not, and if his interpretation were correct as to what he says is in the context of a decision by a judicial person—this is always difficult to my mind and I am sure Senator Yeats will agree with me on this—a judge in the circuit court and ultimately a judge in the Supreme Court and a person appointed by the Minister——
The Senator was saying a minute ago that all judges were wrong.
I never said that. I said that the decisions the Minister quoted—one was a Northern Ireland decision, another a House of Lords decision and another an Irish decision —were wrong.
The Senator said that a Northern Ireland judge was wrong.
It is one thing for the courts to interpret the law as they find it and to say that that is what the Legislature has left open to us and that that is the decision we arrive at. It is quite a different thing for the Legislature to put something in their legislation so that the law can say that that is what is in the law as they found it. The Minister may take his present interpretation of the law because the existing law may have been badly drafted when it was open to that interpretation. We are making law here and deciding that a man shall submit himself to a surgical operation. That type of thing is contrary to the Constitution and it is quite intolerable.
Amendment put.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 15; Níl, 27.
Tá
- Conlan, John F.
- Crowley, Patrick.
- Davidson, Mary F.
- FitzGerald, Garret M.D.
- McAuliffe, Timothy.
- McDonald, Charles.
- McHugh, Vincent.
- McQuillan, Jack.
- Malone, Patrick.
- Murphy, Dominick F.
- O'Quigley, John B.
- O'Reilly Patrick (Cavan).
- O'Sullivan, Denis J.
- Prendergast, Micheál A.
- Rooney, Eamon.
Níl
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brennan, John J.
- Browne, Seán.
- Cole, John C.
- Dolan, Séamus.
- Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
- Egan, Kieran P.
- Farrell, Joseph.
- Fitzsimons, Patrick.
- Flanagan, Thomas P.
- Honan, Dermot P.
- Killilea, Mark.
- McGlinchey, Bernard.
- McGowan, Patrick.
- Martin, James J.
- Nash, John Joseph.
- Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- O'Reilly, Patrick (Longford).
- Ormonde, John.
- Ryan, Eoin.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Patrick W.
- Ryan, William.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
- Teehan, Patrick J.
- Yeats, Michael.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Conlan and McDonald; Níl, Senators Browne and Farrell.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 25, line 21, before "to attend" to insert:
"provided that his medical condition permits him to do so".
The Bill as drafted states that the person can lose his benefit if he fails without good cause to attend at such places and times as may be required for the purpose of medical examination or treatment. There is no provision here to cover the case of somebody whose medical condition does not permit him to attend at such places and times. The answer given to this on Committee Stage was not satisfactory. We were told the Deciding Officer would interpret. I do not think we should ask anybody whose medical condition does not permit him to travel as required to submit himself to medical examination and treatment and to show good cause.
The requirement should be made only in respect of people whose medical condition permits them and we should not leave it to the Deciding Officer to decide whether any degree of medical condition is sufficient to be regarded in his view as good cause. We should state specifically what good cause is for a man not being able to attend at such time and place. The reply on Committee Stage was not satisfactory and I wish to raise the matter again now.
This amendment is an example of how far the Senators on the opposite side are pushing this and of the ridiculous lengths to which they are pushing it. This is a quite ridiculous amendment. It merely substitutes one decision on the part of the Deciding Officer for another. If the Deciding Officer is not prepared to be reasonable and say there is good cause that a man's medical condition does not permit him to attend, he is just a likely to say he does not agree that the medical condition is such that the person could not attend. If he is going to be unreasonable about one thing he is going to be unreasonable about the other. It seems that this amendment adds nothing to the situation. Assuming that there were really any grounds for worry about this or for thinking that the Deciding Officer was going to act in an unreasonable way, then this does not help the matter at all.
I am satisfied that everybody, including Senator FitzGerald, appreciates that if a man's medical condition does not permit him to travel this would obviously be accepted as good cause by any sane individual.
I am more impressed with Senator E. Ryan's contribution than with the Minister's. It may be that I am wrong in my interpretation of what the effect of the amendment would be. What I had in mind was that as it stands, as I read it, the onus is on the injured workman to prove good cause, whereas my intention—perhaps not given effect to by the amendment—was to put the onus on the Deciding Officer to show that, in fact, the workman's medical condition permitted him to come. I was anxious to shift the onus, though maybe I have not succeeded in doing that. I am importing into this situation a judicial concept which Deciding Officers in their bureaucratic way will ignore, but it may be that the onus of proof does not arise here because it will be considered bureaucratically. I intended by this amendment to shift the onus of proof, and if, in fact, I have not done so, then I have not achieved anything, I admit. This is a case where Senator E. Ryan is a greater legal expert than I am, but that is what I was trying to do, possibly unsuccessfully.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 25, line 24 to add at the end:
"relating to the answering of reasonable enquiries from the Department of Social Welfare about his claim, the provision at his home of details of his present location when he departs from his home for periods of twenty-four hours or more, obedience to his doctor's instructions, and other matters likely to affect his recovery".
This brings us back to the prescribed rules of behaviour. The Minister was good enough to indicate on the Committee Stage what he had in mind with regard to the prescribed rules of behaviour. What I was anxious to do was to spell these out and not leave it to the civil servants to decide what suits them. In this respect I am anxious in particular to reverse the present position as I understand it from the Minister under the Social Welfare Acts under which a man is forbidden to leave his home unless he does something. I want to reverse that and to put in a more reasonable requirement that he should leave details of his location at home if he departs from his home for periods of 24 hours or more.
I do not believe that any legislation should be so worded as to tell a man that he may not leave his house unless ...; that is a completely inappropriate way to legislate about our people. We should reverse that point and put it in the reasonable form in which I think it is now, that I have covered the various contingencies the Minister referred to, except that the Minister wants to be in a position to harry a man so that he would not be in a position to leave his house day or night to go to a shop, a publichouse or anywhere else, without leaving a message. I do not think that that idea is reasonable. I think that the requirement should be limited to cases of leaving his home for 24 hours or more. If he leaves overnight there is no reason why he cannot be contacted.
The idea that a man must stay in his house throughout the civil servants' working day, 9 to 5, or whatever it may be and be, at the beck and call of the official, unable to leave for a few minutes without leaving a message, is a bureaucratic approach which is quite unacceptable. I have covered all the contingencies mentioned by the Minister except for the modification in this instance of his requirement that a man should on his departure leave a message or should not leave his house at any time for any period without leaving a message. I have changed it around into the form that he must provide at his home details of his present location when he departs from it for 24 hours or more. The other cases are identical with what the Minister said he wanted to provide for. I think that the amendment covers all reasonable requirements and can only be resisted on unreasonable bureaucratic lines.
Hear, hear.
I have no objection to seeing if it is possible to change the wording in the rules of behaviour which will be prescribed to the wording that would appear to please Senator FitzGerald, though I do not see any necessity to do so. I think that I have made it clear that the rules which will be prescribed will be the minimum necessary to ensure that a claimant satisfies the conditions for benefit and that he does not impede his recovery to health. There is no question of harrying anybody. These rules will only operate when there appears to be an attempt made to evade the social welfare officer.
I should point out that the limitation that would be imposed by this amendment could. for instance, preclude a regulation in regard to certain work which a claimant might, as in the case of disability benefit, be permitted to do without incurring a penalty, for example, work as an outworker under a scheme charitable in character where his earnings do not exceed £3 a week. This is allowed in regard to disability benefit, and if it was not possible to do this in regard to injury benefit, then there would be a hardship on a claimant for injury benefit as compared with a claimant for disability benefit. It is also not deemed to be feasible to have this requirement in respect of periods of absence of 24 hours or more. Anybody will quite see that if the limitation of 24 hours or more was there it could be made very difficult for the social welfare officer to ensure that benefit was not being paid when it was not due.
This, I am afraid, has not got us any further at all. The Minister does not seem to have even an ounce of flexibility left in him. I am not sure that he ever had it in him. It is a pity that he has adopted in regard to the whole of this Bill, right up to this last thing, a completely inflexible attitude. Only one thing has been changed, and that when there was pressure from the other side of the House as well as this. His extraordinary ability to reflect the bureaucratic mind seems to me to be a very real failure in a Minister, and frankly we are not used to it to that degree. We have had in this House Ministers who come in and are prepared to take open flexible action and are not prepared to be ruled by bureaucracy. It is a pity that the Minister has not in this instance adopted a more flexible attitude. I cannot under any circumstances agree that it is reasonable to require of a man that if he leaves his house for any period of time he must leave notice of where he has gone simply because he is unfortunate enough to have fallen into the grip of the Minister's poor law scheme.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 16 is out of order.
Amendment No. 16 not moved.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 25, line 44, to delete "surgical".
The House can take a decision, the discussion having taken place earlier.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 26, line 29, before "shall" to insert "and farmers owning land the rateable valuation of which does not exceed £50."
One of the merits of this amendment is that it makes it all too clear what I meant by "small farmer" in view of the ambiguity that this phrase was felt on the other side of the House to convey when we last met. I was also accused of having widened the whole issue too much by saying that anybody should be allowed to become a voluntary subscriber. This amendment is simply to show that I am quite prepared to have it limited to farmers with a valuation of under £50 who should be permitted to opt into the scheme. I am not sure actually, as I am on my feet, that the amendment is worded or is performing quite the role I intended for it; as to whether, in fact, it operates to allow them to become voluntary subscribers. I might have left out a couple of words in the actual amendment. In any event, the intention is to permit farmers of a valuation of less than £50 to opt into the scheme. I might have been widening the issue too much by leaving it open to anybody to opt in. The arguments in favour of allowing these farmers, with small holdings, the right to opt into the scheme are self-evident. The Minister did accept that there was a strong case for it. I would hope that by narrowing it down I am making it possible for the Minister to accept this proposition without waiting for the overall reform of the social welfare code, for which we have waited nine years now since this Government came into office.
I said I was in favour, in principle, of permitting self-employed people to become voluntary contributors to the social insurance schemes wherever feasible. I appreciate that Senator FitzGerald intended by this amendment to make it possible for farmers of under £50 valuation to become voluntary contributors but, in fact, his amendment does not do that. The effect of the amendment is to make them compulsorily insurable and I am certainly not so sure that I am in favour of making self employed people compulsorily insurable. I am even more certainly convinced that a considerable number of farmers under £50 valuation would resent that quite bitterly. The effect of this amendment would be to make those people compulsorily insurable. While I said I was in favour of the principle of admitting them as voluntary contributors to as many of the social insurance schemes as possible, I also said this was quite a difficult question and one which could not possibly be dealt with during the passage of this Bill. That has to be my attitude on it.
(Longford): Apparently the Minister is getting a bit flexible towards Senator FitzGerald, probably because of his castigations of a few moments ago. Farmers, together with shopkeepers, tradesmen and such, are self-employed people. They should continue to be self-reliant and depend on their own efforts. This advance towards socialism should I say——
No harm in that.
(Longford):——in regard to insurance, is a bit alien to farming and self-employed people. I think that any effect it had in the past on self-employed people in rural areas was not a good one. As far as the merit of the amendment is concerned, there is nothing—as things are—to prevent the farmer with a poor law valuation of less than £50 insuring against one type of risk or another with any commercial insurance company.
I am not able to give any information as to the premium costs or actuarial value. I shall leave that sort of calculation to Senator FitzGerald and people who understand the matter well. But, as things are, I should prefer to see the people I refer to remaining self-reliant. If you have systems such as this Bill provides for, you are bound to need more power—in other words, more dedication and more infringement of human rights in the interest of a system, of the establishment of a centre. That is the only justification I could see for voting against the amendment. If we are to have systems like this, we must have more authority. I am one of those people who like to give only as much authority to an Executive as is necessary to do a good job of work.
Ministers seem to take the short term view. None of us knows what sort of Government we will have in 50 or 100 years from now. That is why we should have a pattern in legislation. Having said that, I think it is not a good thing to go on the road which might ultimately lead towards compulsory insurance for small self-employed people.
I have listened to this discussion and I am a bit puzzled as to where we are going. I think Senator FitzGerald's approach to this matter was that he preferred to let the insurance companies take care of workmen's compensation. Here in this amendment he is suggesting that the farmers be brought in under this. The farmers are self-employed; they can cover this risk of injury in the course of their self-employment with commercial insurance companies. Now Senator FitzGerald is saying: "Well, the State should intervene in this and should provide this form of insurance". It would be a very good thing if the State did provide this form of insurance, particularly if there were some positive measures to induce self-employed farmers and such people to cover themselves because, if they are injured in the course of their employment, they are in great difficulty and it would be a very good thing that they should be covered in regard to this risk.
Whether or not this is the appropriate measure in which to do that I am not at all clear. I am a bit nonplussed about Senator FitzGerald's approach to the Bill and to this particular amendment.
I am very sorry to "nonplus" Senator Murphy but I think, perhaps, Senator Murphy was not here when I was talking on this debate in the beginning and when I explained my position in relation to this matter. The reason why, with great qualms, I supported the Majority Report was that I felt the case had not quite been made for a change and that, in particular, the merits of the social welfare scheme proposed were such that as between the two I would prefer the status quo. I wrote an addendum to the Report to make that clear.
The distinction is a bit too fine for a simple man like myself.
I have no inhibitions about talking when this seems to be in the public interest and I hold no brief whatever with insurance companies in this matter. What I am concerned about here is that, in fact, it would benefit farmers if they could have access to this scheme. The premiums to be paid to insurance companies are correspondingly high and, if they could join in this scheme—I think some of them would do so—it would be to their benefit. I was interested in what Senator O'Reilly had to say and I respect his concern to minimise bureaucratic interference. I feel that during the debate today and the last day he might have been happier on this side of the House as we fought the battle against bureaucratic interference.
Perhaps I did not make my amendment clear. There is a drafting error on my part. I have the feeling that I inadvertently turned it into compulsory inclusion for farmers of £50 valuation. That was not my intention. I would say though that there is a strong case for doing so ultimately. Many of these farmers do not protect themselves against the risks involved in their occupation. There are cases in which the State must, however reluctant one must feel at having State intervention, step in to protect people when they fail to protect themselves. A case can be made for this. We could test out the ground in this area by leaving it open to farmers to come in voluntarily as a first step and see how many of them did so. It might be desirable, however, to include them compulsorily. I did not intend to include that compulsorily at this stage; it is an error on my part. As the amendment is not expressed to my thinking on this point I am prepared to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Government amendment No. 19:
In page 29, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following new section:
"38. Sections 44, 45 and 46 of the Principal Act shall have effect as if the words ‘question specified in paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of subsection (1) of section 42 of this Act', wherever they occur in those sections, did not include a reference to a question arising under this Act as to whether an accident arose out of and in the course of employment."
A discussion has already taken place on this amendment. Amendment No. 19 agreed?
On the basis that half a loaf is better than no bread.
Good; the Senator will not be hungry.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 30, to delete lines 13 to 19 inclusive and substitute:
"(2) Where an order is proposed to be made under this section a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the order shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House."
Section 40 which this amendment is designed to improve gives power to the Minister to make certain adaptations in the Act when bringing it into operation. I can quite see the necessity when you are welding a piece of legislation of this kind into another complicated and complex code to have powers of the kind sought. But, when it comes to changing the provisions of an Act of Parliament, I think that something more than a mere regulation to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas is required. We have had that kind of situation in previous enactments and, indeed, since the Minister is so fond of precedents it is no harm to refer to what was done in the Social Welfare Act, 1952, in relation to which this Act will be read and construed. In that Act it is to be found in a number of cases that where regulations of a far-reaching character are made these regulations, before coming into operation, must be laid in draft form before each House of the Oireachtas and a resolution passed approving of them. Until that is done the regulations do not have effect.
I am quite sure that the Minister in that way that he has, because he is so fond of precedents, will probably refer to a similar provision under the Social Welfare Acts in the bringing into operation of the Widows and Orphans and the Old Age Pensions Act where regulations of this kind could be made merely by laying them before the Houses of the Oireachtas. What I want to insist on here is that we must be on our guard against bad precedents and, indeed, where bad precedents have been established in the past we ought, when we have the opportunity to do so, correct them.
Under this Act it seems to me that there will be no difficulty whatever where the Minister wants to make such adaptations as are necessary for bringing the Act into operation in coming into each House of the Oireachtas with a draft of the order. That is the kind of thing which has to be done under the Social Welfare Acts. It is done under other Acts, and I think it is a derogation of the authority of Parliament to say that the making of an Order and the mere laying of it before each House shall be effective to change an Act of Parliament. I can quite see that there might not be a necessity for coming in and having a full debate but I think since it has been found proper on previous occasions to seek the approval of Parliament in respect of draft orders of an important character we ought to regard as sufficiently important to warrant the same kind of procedure where we are making changes in the legislation even though for the very good purpose of bringing the Act into operation. For that reason, I suggest the House should accept this amendment.
As Senators know, any such order that may be made may be annulled by a motion of either House and I think it is agreed that with a Bill of this nature it is not possible to foresee at this stage all the contingencies that may arise when it comes into operation and it is desirable to have an expeditious remedy, for instance, in the case of a workman who it is clearly intended would be entitled to benefit but who, because of the wording in the Bill, may be disqualified. It would not be possible to remedy a situation such as this if it were to occur if the order had to be laid before the House for approval before being made.
I agree that there would be no real difficulty in doing what is suggested but there would be unnecessary delay. There is this safeguard at any rate and if any such order is made and if it appears to be objectionable to any Senator this move to have the order annulled can be made.
I detect a note of flexibility in the Minister's approach to the Bill at the conclusion of the debate on the last amendment. It is a pity that we did not have more of this and that the Minister, having to stay in this environment, should have sustained that flexibility which I said was noted on the Report Stage. At least the Minister does credit to the authority of the House and when that is the Minister's approach I have less hesitation in withdrawing this amendment than I had in withdrawing some of the others.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration.
Agreed to take remaining Stage today.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass".
We debated this Bill on Second Stage, on Committee Stage and on Report Stage at considerable length and one can only regret that the Bill leaves this House in a much less better shape than it might have been if the Minister's capacity for flexibility, which overtook him on the last amendment, had manifested itself earlier in the course of our deliberations. The truth of the matter is that the Opposition are not always wrong and the Government are not always right. The only substantial amendment made on this side of the House, that was made at all from this side of the House, is one to which some of the Minister's Party subscribed. That is amendment No. 19 which gives some form of appeal to the courts. It is very regrettable that these are the only kind of amendments that are acceptable to the Minister. I have very little doubt that a number of other amendments suggested by people on this side of the House were equally deserving of more favourable consideration by the Minister.
Be that as it may, we have here now a new system of compensation for people who are incapacitated through injury arising out of and in the course of their employment. To the extent that the Bill first of all improves the conditions under which the benefit will be more readily available, and increases the amount of benefit, the Bill is worthwhile, but all of that could be achieved by a different system. The Bill is filled with conditions, and with regulations that will have to be made and implemented, some by the Minister and some by the Deciding Officers and Appeals Officers.
As I have already indicated, we have no great faith in that kind of system. It can only remain for the likes of me to hope that some of the things which have been said in the course of this debate, if they are drawn to the attention of these various functionaries constituted under the Social Welfare Acts, will bear fruit, and that the approach of the Deciding Officers and Appeals Officers will not be the impersonal one referred to in the Minority Report, but a personal and humane approach. That is the kind of approach which I hope will be adopted by these people. I hope that is the approach which the Minister will ecourage them to adopt in the implementation of this Bill.
One of the things I dread when legislation of this kind is being enacted, is the amount of to-ing and fro-ing which it will give rise to between the people entitled to benefit and Deputies and public representatives and the Minister. Of course, there will be an increase in the number of letters flowing into the Department of Social Welfare immediately someone is deprived of what he considers to be his rights under this Bill. In effect, one can expect that the Deciding Officers and the Appeals Officers will be affected by the standing of the person who makes the representation on behalf of the claimant workman or workwoman. That is regrettable, and I would be much happier if, in the exercise of the discretion vested in them under this Bill, and in the decisions they are called upon to make, the Deciding Officers and Appeals Officers exercised that discretion without regard to the political pressures, the Party political pressures which will undoubtedly be exerted upon them from time to time to make them change their minds.
There are provisions in the Bill which entitle Deciding Officers to review cases. Of course, the power to review will be resorted to by people exercising Party political pressure. That is one of the great objections I see to legislation of this kind. I hope that so far as he can the Minister will give a direction to people who are vested with discretionary power, by statute, to see to it that they are not subjected to pressures, or that they do not yield if they are subjected to pressures of that kind.
This Bill is like a tree in the winter time. It is stark, but in the fullness of time, it will be festooned with regulations which will envelop it like the leaves on the trees outside. We will not be able to see this stark measure for all the regulations which will encrust it by the time the Minister has ceased to make them. Because of that, it is urgently necessary that in conjunction with this Bill the Minister should provide some kind of service for workmen who will have need to resort to this. I cannot for the life of me see how, with all the regulations that will be made under this Bill, the workers will know what their rights are.
It may well be that it will be necessary for the Minister to introduce legislation—I do not think it will be; I think it could be done in the ordinary implementation of the Bill—to provide the necessary legal services or legal aids or advisory aids—call them what you will; I do not mind—in the Department of Social Welfare to enable the workmen to know the benefits to which they are entitled. These aids should be such that any worker who thinks he is being deprived of his rights can go to the particular functionary and ask to be advised on what his rights are. It is very important that the functionary should be clothed in powers and given status that will enable a workman to rely upon the advice given to him. If that is not done, I have a very great fear that a great deal more will be involved in the administration of this Bill than is necessary.
I cannot but again advert to the serious inroads which I believe have been made upon personal liberty by the Legislature in this piece of legislation. It has been pitiable to watch a Minister of State in a free Parliament in a prison of precedent and officials. The Minister has the power to decide what his Party will accept, and it seemed to me on numerous occasions that any Minister acting reasonably and having regard to the wishes expressed by his own side of the House, the wishes expressed by the Trade Union Congress, and the wishes expressed on this side of the House, would have accepted a number of the amendments that were suggested. That that has not been done is a matter of great regret. I hope that if in the working out of this piece of legislation the Minister finds that he was wrong and we were right, he will not hesitate to introduce the necessary amending legislation at the earliest possible date.
Finally, I should like to ascertain from the Minister when it is intended to bring this Bill into operation. As we have already said, a great many people have received no increase in their weekly payments since 1955. While everyone else has got increases in wages, workmen paid workmen's compensation on the basis laid down in 1955 have received no increase, and I am quite certain this Bill cannot be brought into operation too soon for those people so that they will get the fairly valuable increases which are provided for them under section 24. I hope that the Minister, not withstanding his fears when he replied to me this evening that he had no money in the Fund, will be able to find some way of anticipating the inflow of revenue and give these unfortunate workers the increase which everyone must agree they should long since have got.
As I welcomed the introduction of this Bill to the House, so I should also like to welcome its passing in the form in which it is being passed. As it was introduced to the House I expressed one reservation, and I am glad to say at this stage that I no longer have cause to express that reservation because the Minister has introduced an amendment which allows a right of appeal to the courts to determine whether or not the injury has arisen out of or in the course of the employment. In common with Senator O'Quigley, one of the reasons that I welcomed this on the Second Stage was that I felt it was more appropriate that a proper tribunal, which could act independently, would decide, by way of appeal rather than that public representatives would have the increased burden of making representations to the Department and, accordingly, that the Department would also have the increased burden of dealing with those representations. The more regulations of this kind we introduce in our legislation the more we will leave the public representatives free to do the work which they are primarily selected to do.
We welcome, first of all, extending the scope of the existing, if I might call it so, workmen's compensation to include the type of worker who was never included. Secondly, we welcome the increased amounts which will be payable to such workers. We must all agree that those are highly desirable and very welcome measures.
During the course of the debate on this Bill as it passed through the House many amendments were moved from all sides of the House. Some of them were moved by the Fine Gael Party and some by the Labour Party. Many views were expressed on the propriety of various sections in the Bill. This is in accordance with the spirit which has characterised debate in the House since I came here. Members from this side of the House, from the very earliest stages, particularly Senator Eóin Ryan and myself have indicated to the Minister that we were very apprehensive about the system of appeals that the Bill, as introduced, contained.
We expressed our strongest reservations. Indeed, I said specifically on the Second Stage that this was the matter in this Bill which gave me the most cause for anxiety. I could not have spelled the matter out more effectively. I repeated those reservations on the Committee Stage of the Bill. Although Senator Eóin Ryan was not here on that occasion, due to illness, I know that the reservations which I repeated were also the ones he still retained. For that reason I find it regrettable that the Fine Gael Party have claimed in a statement which they published that the amendment to this Bill which allows for an appeal, as they said in their statement, to the circuit court, quite incorrectly, was introduced due to the pressure from the Fine Gael Party. That is completely untrue.
First of all, in fairness to Senator Miss Davidson, I should say at all Stages of this Bill, that she has indicated anxiety on her own behalf and on behalf of the Labour Party to have an appeals tribunal allowed in this Bill. Senator Eóin Ryan and myself have not been silent with regard to this matter. In fact, I can assure the House that before any amendment was put down we used all the powers of persuasion that are open to us to request the Minister to introduce the amendment that has been introduced. For that reason, it is a grave breach of the independence of the House. I am very happy to speak with the Members of any side of this House on any subject or any amendment but if in doing so I am included as a member of the Fine Gael Party who has pressurised the Minister, I consider this is a matter which requires some explanation and more likely an apology. If that kind of statement can be published incorrectly as to the pressure which was exercised on the Minister—I do not accept that any pressure was exercised on the Minister—with regard to appeals to the circuit court, then in the interests of reasoned and objective debate in this House we certainly require some explanation from the Fine Gael Party who have claimed to have done so much in this Bill by exercising pressure on the Minister.
Ar an Dara Chéim do thug an tAire fúm i leith an méid adúras mar gheall ar an slí fé leith inar thug an tAire le fios sa Dáil go raibh sé socraithe aige:
An Scéim Árachais Shóisialaigh do leathnú tré fhoráil bhreise a chur inti le h-aghaidh sochair i leith díobhálacha, nó báis de bhárr díobhála, le linn fostaíochta.
Dúirt an tAire:
Senator FitzGerald, predictably, started off, first of all, to convict me of the unspeakable crime of having replied in Irish to a Parliamentary question addressed to me in that language by a Deputy. As I say, that was a predictable thing. I knew that would be his approach. Apparently, his belief was that having first of all established me as a transgressor in this regard, that is as a non-conformist with Senator FitzGerald's standard of behaviour, it would then be easier for him to demolish the Bill. Apparently it is a crime for me to reply in Irish to a question addressed to me in Irish. Senator FitzGerald does not like it. I did not have to wait until I came here yesterday to learn Senator FitzGerald's feelings with regard to the Irish language. I am well aware of them but Senator FitzGerald assumes tacitly that because he does not like the Irish language, therefore it must be universally accepted that it is wrong to use it.
May I draw the Senator's attention to the fact that there is nothing in this Bill dealing with the Irish language? The debate on the Fifth Stage must relate to the contents of the Bill.
I was concerned with what the Minister said on the Second Stage and his reply to a question in the Dáil.
It is the Bill now before us that the discussion is on.
I thought, on the Fifth Stage, that I was entitled to refer to something which was said on the Second Stage.
We must, by Standing Orders, confine ourselves on the Fifth Stage to what is in the Bill.
I defer to your ruling.
The Senator is only referring to what the Minister said on an earlier Stage.
The Chair is ruling that on the Fifth Stage, Senators must confine their remarks to the contents of the Bill.
I thought that when the Minister made some untruthful remarks about me on the Second Stage, I was entitled to reply to them.
The Chair is concerned with the Fifth Stage and on that Stage Senators must confine their remarks to the contents of the Bill.
I defer to your ruling and I shall deal with the Minister's untruths some other time. This is a Bill on which from the outset I expressed fears. Bringing the workmen's compensation code into the social welfare code did not seem to me to be the most appropriate way of dealing with the matter. The fears I had have been reinforced throughout the debate by the rigidity of the Minister on so many matters and his contention that the maximum amount of power should be given to him concerning legislation by regulation with regard to the life and interests of injured workmen—a power of a kind which in many cases went far beyond the reasonable requirements of any such legislation. It is unfortunate that if this Bill had to be brought within the social welfare code it was done before that code was reformed or made more reasonable in these respects.
Also unfortunate is the fact that the Minister should have, no doubt through inadvertence, possibly excusable, misinterpreted the Minority and the Majority Reports of the Commission. Some good things have come out of the debate. We have had the Minister indicating that he is interested in the idea of wage related benefits and while he insisted on eliminating the wage relationship principle in existing legislation, he indicated that he is willing to reintroduce it if and when some general reform of social welfare legislation takes place. He also indicated his willingness to consider the extension of certain aspects of the social welfare code, including workmen's compensation, to self-employed people.
We have had the question of the appeal. As to what Senator O'Kennedy has said, I respect his views and if he expresses concern about something that has been said I know his concern is likely to be reasonably founded. The credit for achieving this change can certainly not be claimed solely by Fine Gael and I am not aware of any statement seeking to claim that sole credit. If that interpretation was put on any statement it was certainly not the intention.
I quote:
"Pressure by Fine Gael," the statement continued, "in the Senate last week succeeded in securing the agreement of the Minister for Social Welfare to the introduction of an appeal to the Circuit Court for workmen claiming compensation for injuries.."
A statement issued by the Senator's Party was published in a national newspaper last week.
The statement, in so far as it does not mention the pressure from the Government Front Bench, is a cause for the Senator's concern and I accept it. Unless we had support from the Government Front Bench it is unlikely that a Minister as rigid and inflexible as the Minister for Social Welfare would have given ground in any area of this legislation. I must point out, however, that we helped, particularly when we drew the attention of the Minister to the fact that he had totally misrepresented the Minority Report, going so far as to fail to read the statement set out in capital letters. I doubt, however, if our efforts would have made him give in, without pressure from his own front bench. This House has in the past worked together for a good cause and I regret it if any statement made did not give credit to the Government Front Bench in this matter as in other Bills which they have helped to improve when the other House had failed.
Our joint efforts here have not yielded the important results we should all like to have seen. I accept some blame because it may be that in attacking so vigorously the concept of the Bill and its presentation, we may have stiffened the Minister's back. Possibly a more diplomatic approach might have achieved more. In attacking it the way I did, I was consciously doing so because I thought it important to draw to the attention of this House and of wider circles to the fact that in the period since this Government came into office, while progress has been made in many spheres and while members of the Government have contributed to that progress, we have not made the progress we should have in the social welfare sphere.
That Department and the Ministers responsible for that Department have not pulled their weight fully and I thought it proper that, even at the expense of alienating the Minister slightly, the attention of the House and the country should be drawn to these deficiencies. I pointed out the little regard this Bill and the Department responsible for it have to the desirability of harmonising our social welfare code with European standards instead of concentrating their efforts on following in the footsteps of Britain. If I said this harshly I thought that, while it might lead to some rigidity, the criticisms might also lead in the future to a more alert, progressive attitude on the part of the Minister and the Department. I, therefore, deliberately took a course of action which led to fewer of our amendments being accepted but which, I hope, will lead to a better Department of Social Welfare and a more intelligent approach to social welfare in the future.
That has been my approach to this Bill. Perhaps I was wrong. I am sorry we have not secured more progress. Perhaps some of the amendments turned out to be misguided but some of them were very well founded and I regret they have not been accepted by the Minister. However, this is not the last Bill dealing with workmen's compensation we shall see in this House and certainly some of the bureaucratic elements of this Bill and of our social welfare legislation generally, if not removed in the lifetime of the present Government, long or short that may be, will be removed by another Government which will be concerned with the improvement of the code and the elimination of bureaucratic rigidity, which will make the legislation more acceptable to our people and more in line with their traditions.
Senator FitzGerald in his last speech seems to have become considerably more flexible than he was when he started off this debate. There has been a long, sustained and bitter attack on this Bill and on the whole principle behind it by the Senators in the Fine Gael Front Bench, particularly by Senator FitzGerald. He produced a large number of epithets.
Epigrams, perhaps.
No, epithets. I can pick out a few of the milder ones. He said the Bill was bad and botched, completely contrary to modern practice, a step backwards in our social welfare. He said it displayed on many occasions a Poor Law mentality.
An uncommitted person who read the Bill and then listened to the Fine Gael speeches in this House would wonder if Fine Gael were discussing the Bill we have before us. It is very difficult to find any real basis for the vast majority of the attacks made on this Bill. I think the main cause for these Fine Gael attacks is that they have not really been able to grasp the basic change that is now taking place. The main point about the Bill is that from now every worker will be entitled as an automatic right to compensation for injury suffered arising from his work.
We have always had that.
No longer shall we have the position that an injury suffered at work inevitably involves a dispute with the employer. The employer is now out of it. He no longer has any interest in whether the worker does not get compensation at all or whether it is kept as low as possible. That is a very important step forward. No longer will the worker have to take his rights to court or threaten to do so. No longer will barristers and solicitors be hired especially and specifically for the purpose of seeing if possible that the worker does not get his compensation or that the compensation is as low as possible.
These highly undesirable factors which have existed until now under the workmen's compensation system are all going. We have had many complaints about these being taken away from the courts. Fine Gael have not yet realised the basic proposition that the courts are there to deal with litigation on disputes between citizens, that is, the civil courts. This is not a matter now involving disputes. The worker who is injured while at work is entitled to compensation, and no longer are the insurance companies there to try to see that his claim is kept as low as possible. There is no longer any element of fault involved with regard to a dispute with employers. That is the main change that has taken place now, and to my mind the most important single advance made by this Bill.
Another important advance related to the same factor is that this matter has been taken away from the insurance companies. It is quite clear that over the years the worker did not get good value from the old system where the majority of employers were insured by private insurance companies. Senator FitzGerald said that all insurance companies come under suspicion. I am not going as far as that, but I do think they were inefficient. We had the position, though the exact amount is slightly in dispute, that not more than 9/3d out of every £ of insurance premiums paid actually reached the worker in claims paid. The Minister says, and experience suggests that in this he will be right, that from now on approximately 18/- in each £ of premiums will reach the worker by way of claims paid.
Apart from this basic misunderstanding which I think Fine Gael have with regard to the purpose of the Bill and the basis of it, and particularly the reason for no longer needing to have these matters settled by the courts, they come into this House, Senator FitzGerald in particular, with theoretical notions of what should have been in the Bill. For example, we had many complaints on this question of flat rates of injury benefit. Senator FitzGerald told us that these should be related to wages, and that the higher wage earner should get a higher rate of benefit than the people on a lower income level. The view of the Government in this Bill, and it is a view, I think, that any reasonable person will support, is that the important thing is that the amount of wages earned depend not on the need of the worker. I find it almost impossible to understand how anyone can seriously support the proposition that a man with perhaps a wife and six children should be on the same level of benefit as a single man living at home with his parents. I find it impossible to see how that can be supported, yet that is the dismal proposition that Senator FitzGerald and other Fine Gael Senators have been supporting.
Indeed, it is not.
This question, for example, of allowances for dependants was, in fact, considered by the Majority of the Commission on Workmen's Compensation. That Majority specifically and definitely rejected the idea of payments to dependants. That Report was signed by Senator FitzGerald.
With reservations.
Yes, with reservations. He wrote an addendum. I do not want to misquote anyone, but I have read the addendum several times with great care and as far as I can understand it all it does is to explain in greater detail why he agrees with the Majority Report. It does nothing, and advances nothing, which is not already in the Majority Report. It merely says why and how Senator FitzGerald was able to resolve some doubts and bring himself to sign the Majority Report. There is nothing in it to suggest that at any time he was in favour of allowances to dependants. If it is a case of deciding between varying rates according to wages and allowances for dependants, I am in no doubt whatever as to which is the correct thing to do.
Senator FitzGerald talked at some length about people with £18 and £20 a week working in manufacturing industry. I do not know why he should be so concerned about them in the first instance, since only about 24 per cent of the insured workers work in manufacturing industries and only a minority of them would be on that level. I am more interested, and so is the Government, in the lower paid workers, for example, a county council road worker with perhaps £9 a week, with a wife and perhaps a couple of children or a larger family. Under this Bill he will get his full wage while he is injured. The proposition put forward by Senator FitzGerald amongst others in this Majority Report was that that man would get 60 per cent of £9. He might have a wife and six children but no matter how long he was injured all he would ever get would be £5 8s. That is not good enough. We are not backward and reactionary people advocating that kind of thing. The lower paid worker should get wherever possible, and certainly with family commitments, his full wage while he is unable to work. One cannot say why one side is right and the other wrong, but we happen to believe in that proposition on this side and I believe that we are right. If anybody is being backward in a matter of that kind it is not we who are supporting this Bill.
Senator FitzGerald also—I am sorry that he is not here in the House, for I seem to be saying so much about him—was at pains——
It might be no harm to refer to the Bill for a while.
He only referred to the Minister and his officials, of course.
He told us on many occasions about the number of countries which do this, that and the other. The Minister should apparently have counted heads and followed the majority. On this question of dependants' allowances he did not mention that there are only 11 countries that have these and 64 which have not. I do not care how many countries have not. We are dealing with Irish conditions and the Minister brings in a Bill which he thinks will suit our conditions here. What happens in Peru or Bolivia or Czechoslovakia we do not mind. It is Ireland we are concerned with. These dependants' allowances were rejected by the Majority Report and I think that the Minister is right in bringing them in.
Disablement benefit, the additional benefit for those who have lost a faculty, is an important advance also Here, again the Minister rightly rejected the advice of the Majority Report of the Commission. Then, I think, there is a very big advance the unemployability supplement the extra amount given to a man unable to work for a very long period. That is a great advance also, and it is a thing which is not recommended and which is not dealt with even, as far as I know, by the majority. There are many other things—easier conditions for benefits, liberalising very considerably the provisions under which a man can come under this Bill. There were a number of cases that we had at various times in the courts that a man was not entitled to workmen's compensation, and a number of these are being reversed in this Bill and brought into the scheme.
With regard to providing medical care, the Bill also marks a considerable advance. This is an interesting example also of extending the service and being accused of being backward and reactionary compared with the majority. It is perhaps worth considering what was said by the Majority Report and by Senator FitzGerald. He and the majority said in relation to the private practitioners that they advocated——
At this stage we must confine our remarks to what is in the Bill.
I will just say that no doubt some of the provisions in this Bill for medical care were recommended by the Majority Report, but it was to be paid for by the worker by another 2d a week on the worker's stamp. That is what is called progressive. I think it is backward. Other good features in the Bill are constant attendance allowances, which is a new thing for workers unable to look after themselves, and that grants may be made for rehabilitation services, and a thing which I mentioned on the Second Reading as a considerable advance, though I agree that on this matter there might be differences of opinion—the ending of lump sums. In every single respect this Bill is an enormous advance on anything we had previously in this country not merely from the point of view of the benefits given, the provision for medical attention and all these things but also from the point of view that in the Bill these things are completely taken away from litigation and controversy of that kind. The worker now knows he is entitled to benefit if he is injured in his work and has no longer any connection with litigation in the courts which, I think, is a very good thing.
I should like to congratulate the Minister. He was considerably attacked in this debate. The Minister for Social Welfare has done a great deal during his period of office to improve the social welfare code in this country. This Bill will go down as a monument to the work he has done in this field.
Listening to some of the speakers in this debate, one would imagine that the State was contributing towards these benefits. In fact, they are making no contribution whatsoever towards the benefits which will be available to injured workmen under this Bill. The arrangement is that the extra cost of paying compensation to the injured workmen will be paid on the employers' social welfare cards and the employers will be required to contribute approximately £3 million per year towards the running of this scheme, depending on the number of persons in employment at any particular time and relating to the ceiling so far as eligibility for payment of benefit is concerned. It is the employers who will be required to pay the cost of this scheme. There is no point in the Government claiming credit for giving these extra benefits to the injured workmen. It is the employers who will pay for it, and pay heavily. While the State is imposing this burden on the employers and taking this away from the discretion of the employers, they are leaving the burden of common law liability on the shoulders of the employers as well.
As far as the employees are concerned in this Bill, they will be deprived of the right to obtain lump sum compensation resulting from injuries where a permanent or partial disability results from those injuries, whereas, previously, an injured man was able to go to court, prove that he had a disability resulting from the accident and was paid a lump sum in the form of compensation. This Bill will not pay any lump sum whatsoever to the injured workman. Whatever the benefits payable to the injured man and whatever the scale of benefits to which he may be entitled, they will be financed by the employers.
In addition to paying this £3 million a year extra—and indeed it might be more according to experience when it is found exactly the number of weeks an injured man will be out of work—if the number of weeks away from work increases compared with the number of weeks at the present time, of course, this scheme will become more expensive. At the present time—and I do not approve of it —the weekly compensation to an injured man is much less than his weekly wages. Consequently, when he receives an injury his one desire is to recover as quickly as possible in order to earn his full week's wages again. In this case, an injured man can obtain weekly compensation equal to, or almost equal to, his weekly wages, at the lowest level, of course, not the highest. But, naturally, if he is receiving weekly compensation equal to, or almost equal to, the amount he receives for working hard all the week, he will not be so anxious to get well quickly and get back to work. In that case, there is no doubt that the cost of paying workmen's compensation will increase; it is bound to increase.
Apart from that, while this imposition on the employers is being provided in this Bill, no attempt has been made to relieve the employer of his common law liability. This means, of course, that, in addition to paying a substantial weekly contribution in respect of each employee, he will be required to insure himself and cover his liability at common law. It is most important that he should be covered on this side of his liability because, in the weekly compensation section at least, there was some kind of foreseeable limit to the amount of compensation which would be payable but, in the common law section the amount for which the employer would be liable would depend on the degree of disability and the decision of the courts. Therefore, in addition to imposing an extra cost on the employers social welfare stamp, employers will still be required, in their own interest, to cover themselves against the liabilities which are not provided for under this Bill.
I heard a point made here that it will cost only 2/- in the pound to administer this scheme. I am amazed at that figure and I shall be interested to see if, in fact, the percentage cost will be so low in relation to the weekly benefit paid, taking into consideration that it would involve a considerable amount of work, first of all, in the Department of Social Welfare and the extensive network of Department officials which must be spread throughout the length and breadth of this country, in every town and parish in order to administer this scheme. With all their wages and salaries added up, I shall be amazed if it is found that, in fact, it will cost only 2/- in the pound to administer this new scheme, even though it is at the expense of the employers.
However, the Bill is certainly a great improvement on the system of compensation which operated up to the present. Although it widens the scope of social administration, it tends towards bureaucracy, cuts out the human factor and imposes impersonal hardships on people who cannot fight back, it is an improvement, so far as the payment of weekly compensation is concerned. But, in all fairness, the Government should not take credit for whatever increased benefits become available now because the employers will be compelled to contribute every penny of the benefits, and more, towards the cost of operating this scheme.
(Longford): I realise one must confine oneself to the Bill as it now stands and I propose to do that by saying that it is not as good as it is said to be or not as bad as it is said to be, depending on one's viewpoint. What I am concerned with at this stage is the difficulty that will arise in getting a knowledge of the terms of this measure down to the people concerned, to the employers and to workers, particularly, who will benefit under it. I am wondering what could be done to improve the method of dissemination of information in that regard by the Department of Social Welfare. It has been indicated by other speakers that there have been some changes in this question of compensation. By and large, it is for the better but, like all changes, it has some good points and some bad ones. I am inclined to agree with someone who says that the last measure of this sort will have to be dealt with lá eile. Beidh lá eile. The usual practice on the part of injured workmen is to go to the local solicitor who brings in counsel and legislation or threatened legislation will ensue.
That was the pattern and that is why the lawyers and people associated with the law took an abnormally keen interest in this matter. I wonder if that is not to be the pattern in future. What the Department of Social Welfare could do is to set up a service, particularly in rural areas, but which I suppose could also be set up in cities. I am speaking of the difficulties that can arise in rural areas. It has been the pattern of local solicitors to get counsel's opinion on all that sort of thing. I am wondering could some sort of service be set up by the Department, not necessarily consisting of officers of the Department as such but liaison officers acting for the public whose loyalty would be to the individual person rather than to the Department. I wonder how far something like that could be set up, together with the publication of a fairly simple and comprehensive document explaining this complicated measure to the public.
A document such as this would have the good effect that it would perhaps, together with some liaison officers, prevent the practice of people, who feel they have that right, from going to public representatives, and that continuous to and fro that has been referred to by the Leader of the Opposition here between Ministers and public representatives. That is not a good thing in public life and it is not good in legislation. Perhaps it would be possible to have men with legal training, not so much acting officers of the Department of Social Welfare, and even if they were officials of the Department of Social Welfare their terms of appointment should be such that their loyalty would be to the individual person rather than to the Department. Their function would be to give advice and that would be so scattered that they would be able to give service in regard to the operation of this as well as other Social Welfare regulations.
Social welfare is a complex matter and only a person with legal training would dare to start going deeply into it. I think the day is coming when it will be necessary to set up such advisory or liaison officers to act for the public in the administration of legislation of this sort.
It is a great pleasure for me to have this legislation, which makes radical and revolutionary improvements in our methods of dealing with employment injury, at last through this House. The Bill has been the subject of prolonged debate with numerous amendments moved in both Houses and, as a result, almost a year has already elapsed since it was first introduced in Dáil Éireann, on the 8th July, 1965. It was rather ironic to hear Senator O'Quigley ascribe this delay to my dilatoriness in view of the postponements in the Dáil to facilitate the Opposition and the protracted debates in both Houses.
I appreciate that an important Bill of this nature must receive adequate examination but, at the same time, in view of the fact that the commencement of the scheme and the payment of the vastly improved benefits to injured workmen and their dependants must await the conclusion of such examination, I think it is a pity that this examination was, as it appeared to me at any rate, somewhat unnecessarily prolonged.
It must be immediately obvious from a comparison of the Bill with the recommendations of the Majority of the Commission, which would cost roughly the same amount, that from the point of view of the workmen the proposals in this Bill are immensely superior to anything that could conceivably be provided under a continuation of the present system.
Having heard the debate in both Houses then, I can repeat with even greater conviction, what I said on Second Reading, that this Bill represents a major advance in our social services and that it places us, for the first time, in the forefront of those countries which have highly developed systems of insurance against occupational injury or disease. In so far as this important aspect of social security is concerned, we can feel proud that our system can stand comparison with that in any other country.
I know there are people who prefer to continue in the belief that social welfare generally here is substandard but this is becoming less and less true every year. This major development, combined with the introduction in 1960 of the contributory old age pension, the continuous gain in the case of all other services over the cost-of-living and the many extensions of, and improvements in, these schemes in recent years — all these things have resulted in a very different position in regard to social welfare to that which existed when the present Government took over from the Coalition in 1957. That is not to say we have reached the end of improvements in social welfare. Senators will see many further improvements brought in by this Government but we have been improving our position continuously since 1957 even in difficult circumstances.
I must say it seems to me that during the debate some Opposition members, while they were not prepared to go on record as voting against the Bill, were mainly concerned, by prolonged and exaggerated criticism of minor details, with trying to create the impression that this Bill would bring about a position not as favourable to the workman as would be provided in a modification retaining the fundamentals of the present system and that it would bring about a position greatly inferior to that obtaining elsewhere, particularly in Britain.
This contention will not stand up to examination. We will, when this measure comes into operation, be considerably in advance of a great many countries which would be looked upon as better developed economically than us and our scheme will compare not unfavourably with the British ones. I mentioned during the Committee Stage that in October, 1965, the average earnings of Irish male industrial workers was 70 per cent of those in Britain. Taking the British standard rate of injury benefit as base, and having regard to the earnings ratio of 70 per cent, the appropriate rate of injury benefit for this country would be 94/6, whereas we have provided 115/-. It cannot be denied then, that the provision we are making in this Bill is reasonable, taking account of all our circumstances.
There are, in fact, a number of instances in which this Bill is more favourable to the workman than the British Act, although every effort was made to make it appear that the contrary was true. It is obvious that Senators were quite familiar with provisions of the British Act. One thing that was not adverted to is that here there are no contributions paid by the workmen whereas 5/12ths of the cost of the British scheme is met by workmen's contributions.
In the case of the smaller percentage disablements we provided by way of amendment in the Dáil an option of disablement pension for the full duration of disablement in lieu of the disablement gratuity which, as we have discussed at great length here, would be equivalent to seven years' pension at most. We made special provision in this Bill for accidents to apprentices attending technical courses. The rate of benefit for workers between the ages of 16 and 17 under this Bill is 77/6d as against 67/6d in Britain.
In regard to the increases given for child dependants and the different rates of benefit provided here, the general age limit is 16 as against the school leaving age which is 15 in Britain. Exceptions are possible in both schemes. In Britain an invalid child is covered up to the age of 16 as against the age of 18 in this Bill. In regard to death benefits the provisions here in general are better than in Britain.
In regard to widows the rate of benefit is 95/- here for the full period of widowhood and irrespective of the age or physical capacity of the widow. In Britain after 13 weeks the rate of benefit falls to 90/- and if the widow is young and capable of working it can fall to as low as 20/-. Similarly in regard to widowers who were dependent on their wives because of physical incapacity, there is provision here for a benefit rate of 95/- as against 90/- in Britain.
In regard to provision for parents, we provide for the dependant parents of an unmarried working man a pension of 95/- for one such parent and if there are two parents an additional pension for the second parent of 24/-, making a maximum for two dependant parents of an unmarried worker of 119/-. Against that the British scheme provides 20/- per week pension for one such dependant parent, and if there are two dependant parents of a deceased workman a pension of 15/- per week for each of the two. In other words, a maximum of 30/- per week is provided. That is in respect of the parents of an unmarried workman.
In respect of the dependant parents of a married workman where there is also a widow's pension payable, we provide, in addition to the widow's pension, a pension of 24/- each for both parents as against 30/- for the two, or 15/- each, in the British scheme. In regard to orphans, the provisions here are considerably better. We provide 47/6d pension for every orphan as against in Britain 22/6d for the first child and 14/6d for the others, with 20/- paid to a woman looking after the children. In regard to the funeral grant the provision in this Bill is for £50 and in Britain it is £25.
In addition, our Bill provides for medical care over and above what is provided under the Health Acts. That is not provided in the British Acts. Of course, it would be provided to some extent at least under the British National Health Service.
Despite the Opposition's song and dance, the disparity in favour of this Bill in the benefits provided under the Bill and those recommended in the Majority Report is so great and so obvious that it hardly seems necessary to mention them. However, I think that in concluding this fairly protracted debate I should give one or two examples. Take, for instance, a married man with two children who suffers 100 per cent disablement and is unable to resume work, he will receive by way of disablement benefit, plus disability benefit, or unemployability supplement, 233/6d with increases of 8/- for each other child as against a maximum of 140/-, irrespective of the number of children, under the scheme that was recommended to me by Senator FitzGerald.
In 1960.
If he is in need of constant attendance he will get 273/6d or, in extreme cases, 313/6, with, of course, as I said before, further additions of 8/- in respect of each other child over the number of two. This special attendance may be given free by a member of the family. This is against the 170/- under Senator FitzGerald's scheme, and this only for regular paid attendance with a possible further 30/- in certain circumstances.
The widow's pension provisions are also more favourable as they provide increases in respect of children and the benefit to dependent parents of deceased workmen is greatly superior to Senator FitzGerald's proposal.
This is the third time the Minister has referred to my proposals. In each case he has referred to them incorrectly. As I have already pointed out in the addendum which I signed, I provided specifically for an increase in earnings since that time. I think the Minister might refrain from keeping on making statements over and over again which he knows to be untrue.
I shall deal with that aspect of the matter also. In the case of a dependant parent of an unmarried worker the position under the Bill is that if there are two parents one gets a pension of 95/- per week and the other 24/- per week, as I have already stated, as against the recommendation in the Majority Report which was signed by Senator FitzGerald of a lump sum of £500 for each.
In the case of a married workman under the Bill each dependant parent will get a pension of 24/- a week as against the £50 lump sum recommended in the Majority Report. The provision for orphans, as I have already said when comparing the Bill with the British scheme, is that there is a pension of 47/6 for each orphan as against the recommendation in the Majority Report of 35/- each with a maximum of three. Those are just some examples of the advantages in the scheme which is now passing through the House as compared with the scheme recommended to me by the majority of the Commission.
It has been quite clear both here and in the Dáil that the Fine Gael Party have been trying to have it both ways in regard to this Bill. In both Houses they argued vehemently against the fundamental principles of the Bill, but they refrained from voting against it on Second Stage, while on Committee Stage every effort was made to frustrate the intention in the Bill to make as much as possible of the contribution income available in the form of benefits to injured workmen, and to make the proposal as a whole appear as unfavourable as possible. I do not think Senator FitzGerald will disagree with me when I say that his Second Reading speech was in violent opposition to the Bill. Later his colleague, Senator O'Quigley, disowned this approach and made the astonishing announcement, in view of Senator FitzGerald's attack, that they would not oppose the Bill on Second Stage.
The Minister may not, on this Stage, deal with the whole subject of the debate. He must confine himself, like everybody else, to what is in the Bill.
I submit that I am, in fact, dealing with what is in the Bill. I think I am entitled to show that what is in the Bill is far preferable to what was recommended by the Majority of the Commission, and which was signed by, I think, I can say, the principal Opposition spokesman.
Acting Chairman
The Minister is entitled to refer to what is in the Bill but he is not entitled to make argument at this stage relative to what has been said by any side of the House.
I accept the Chair's ruling but Senator FitzGerald and Senator O'Quigley were permitted to devote practically the whole of their statements on this Stage to criticism of me and the officers of my Department.
I was silenced.
Surely I am entitled to reply to what was said.
Acting Chairman
I will not allow the Minister to reflect on the ruling of the Cathaoirleach, who is not present.
I can understand the reluctance to have the attitude that was adopted both here and in the Dáil referred to. Surely I am entitled to refer to the fact that we have had the main attack directed at the proposals in the Bill to administer this scheme. It is obvious both here and in the Dáil, particularly on the Committee Stage, that the attitude was to seize on small points in the necessary scheme to administer the Bill and by the most outlandish exaggerations and the assumption of extremely improbable and fanciful cases as the normal ones every effort was made to misrepresent the whole tenor of the Bill, which is to make this occupational injuries' compensation a scheme in the sole interests of the workman. There is one thing to which, I think, I am entitled to refer. Their reckless and absurd allegations, such as the protracted attempt to create the impression that people would be required to undergo major surgery and endanger their lives in order to save money and the silly attempt to equate this Bill to the Poor Law system, could only have been in order to cover up for the fact that they had not the moral courage or the unity of purpose to oppose the Second Reading.
Acting Chairman
Again, the Minister is going outside what is in the Bill. It is only what is in the Bill that can be referred to on the Final Stage.
This Bill is one which provides, because of the administrative arrangements that are made, and because of the fact that there is no element of profit associated with it, that the greatest possible amount of premium income is returned in the form of benefits to injured workmen. In view of that fact which I would think everybody would look on as desirable, it seems very difficult to me to understand why there should be such a tenacious attempt to hold on to a system which is weighted so heavily against the best interests of the workman, a scheme in which only 9/3d out of every £1 of premium income is returned in the form of benefits to injured workmen.
I think that practically every arrangement for the administration of the scheme which was made in this Bill was the subject of long and prolonged attack here. Those administrative measures which are contained in this Bill, and are necessarily contained in it, are in effect, the same as those now operating quite satisfactorily in relation to other social welfare services. They are, as I believe all Senators realise, the minimum required to get the scheme launched successfully. The operation of the scheme will, like all other services, be subject to continual review and any difficulties which cannot be foreseen at this stage—I certainly would not attempt to forecast that such difficulties may not arise—will, of course, be corrected in the light of experience.
The Bill provides benefit rates which are the maximum that could be provided by the rate of contribution that has been fixed. We had a number of amendments which would have increased those benefit rates but without any indication as to where the money for those increases was to come from. As I pointed out, while we would all like to see even better benefit rates than those which it has been possible to provide in this Bill, this type of approach of asking for greater benefits without taking any steps to provide greater income is hardly realistic.
I offered to stand on any platform with the Minister to defend higher contribution rates.
This matter was dealt with mainly on the Committee Stage. Proposals were made, by way of amendments, to increase the benefit rates but there were no proposals for increasing the contributions.
(Interruptions.)
Acting Chairman
The Minister, without interruption.
In this Bill I have accepted the unanimous opinion of the members of the Commission as to the charge which it would be reasonable to expect employers as a whole to bear at present. I could not provide higher benefits without collecting more money than that recommended by the Commission.
Four years ago.
I have, in fact, increased them to take account of increases in the cost of living since the Commission reported to me four years ago. During the debates there have been numerous references to the recommendations of the Commission on Workmen's Compensation from both sides of the House both on this Stage and on other Stages. Although I have not accepted the recommendations of the Majority of the Commission and although I have not completely accepted the recommendations of the Minority the tribute which I paid to the members of the Commission and the opinion I expressed as to the value of their work was sincerely intended. I have, in fact, endeavoured, within the context of the main principles of the scheme to follow their recommendations as far as possible.
I must say, however, that when dealing with a matter on which I accepted the recommendation of both the Majority and the Minority of the Commission—that is in the reckoning of earnings at the time of accident but excluding overtime and short-time—is was rather disconcerting to find that a member of the Commission who signed the Majority Report was opposing this unanimous recommendation. When Senator O'Quigley demanded to know where this amazing proposal as he described it, to exclude overtime and short-time had come from, I pointed out to him that his colleague, Senator FitzGerald had, in fact, recommended it to me. Senator FitzGerald's reaction to this was to say that this matter must have arisen before he became a member of the Commission, which was in January, 1959. When this refusal to accept responsibility for anything in the Majority Report, which he signed but which was discussed prior to 1959, is taken in conjunction with the fact that Senator FitzGerald asks me to accept that a report submitted to me in 1962 should be treated as having been submitted in 1960, his attitude to the formal act of appending his signature to the Report of such an important Commission becomes, to say the least of it, more and more peculiar.
I must ask the Minister to confine his contribution to what is in the Bill.
Reference has several times been made to the point I am discussing—the provision in the Bill which was the subject of prolonged attack by Senator FitzGerald who signed a Report recommending this provision on the question of earnings at the time of the accident but excluding overtime and short-time. This was debated at length earlier and was referred to again on this Stage. Surely you will agree this provision is, in fact, in the Bill. In dealing with this new limitation as to what was recommended by Senator FitzGerald and what was not, there is of course no indication in the Report of the chronological order of decisions taken or recommendations made. The Commission sat from 1955 until 1962 and this disclaiming of responsibility for anything that happened prior to 1959 or after 1960 appears to place Senator FitzGerald in the position of accepting responsibility only for, at most, an unspecified one-third of the Report which he signed. This leaves him in a position to disclaim responsibility for everything which appears over his signature. I think this is the limit in irresponsibility.
We have had a lot of discussion as to international practice in regard to this matter of occupational injury and we were told that we are out of step with the EEC countries and that it would be difficult to harmonise our system with theirs as we would be required to do immediately on joining. The fact is, of course, that the EEC countries have not yet harmonised their own social welfare systems. This question of harmonisation is still an unachieved objective and there is, in fact, nothing there at present with which we could conceivably be required to harmonise our system.
There are three basic principles from which we have departed.
We cannot know what standard, if any, may eventually be decided on but one thing is certain: it will not be the system which was recommended to me by Senator FitzGerald and which was defended so tenaciously here. In fact, the basis of all EEC countries' employment injury schemes, with the exception of one, is some form of social insurance and not individual employer's liability, to which Senator FitzGerald committed himself so definitely. It is on this foundation of social insurance, which is introduced here for the first time by this Bill, that we shall find it easier to accommodate ourselves to EEC membership. I and the Labour Party have been criticised for making comparisons with our nearest neighbouring country instead of with what was described without any substantiation as the far superior systems in the EEC.
It is a fact, however, that the British Government have found it necessary to assure an apprehensive public there that when this question of harmonising arises there will, on no account, be a scaling down of their provisions to the lower standards of any other country. As I have said earlier, we have had regard to most modern concepts of international practice in devising this scheme and, particularly, to the recent International Labour Organisation Convention in this field. By meeting the standards laid down by that Convention we have put ourselves into the most progressive category in this respect. If the scheme differs from those in certain countries abroad, it is perhaps because these other countries have not yet reached the stage at which an integrated social insurance provision for employment injury is possible.
As I said before, I am happy to have this Bill reach this Stage. When it is finally enacted I shall have to make arrangements for the making of the many regulations and procedures required to bring it into effect so that it will be available to injured workers and their dependants as soon as possible. I cannot forecast what that date will be but it will be as soon as feasible. New reciprocal arrangements with Britain and Northern Ireland are contemplated as part of this operation. When the new scheme is functioning and we have some experience of the benefit claims arising, I shall consider how I can best discharge my other functions under the Bill in relation to employment injury. I am referring here to such things as the prevention of employment accidents and rehabilitation of injured workmen, two things in respect of which the Minister has been given powers in the Bill but in respect of which no definite decisions have been taken.
This Bill, I am satisfied, marks a further important step in the development of social welfare, every step of which development, including this, has been under a Fianna Fáil Government and I am happy to have been associated with this particular development, a major one which does much to improve our standing in regard to social welfare generally. The fact that it does that, I can understand, is not very palatable to the Opposition.
Question put and agreed to.