Does this section follow the wording of the English section?
SECTION 3.
Question proposed: That Section 3 stand part of the Bill.
It does not follow the wording of the existing English Act, but it follows the wording of the 1923 Act. The principle is the same but there is some change in the wording of the 1925 Act, which is a codifying Act and gets rid of the 1923 Act and the previous Acts. I think it is better to keep the wording in this form, as this is not a codifying Bill.
I would like to give my opinion on this section from the Labour point of view. We regard it as very important that the provision dealing with children (which is irrespective of the fathers' earnings) should be maintained and it should be made clear that the adoption in this Bill of the new British method of dealing with children, which the Committee had before it and decided not to copy, will not rule out the Committee's better method when the Minister introduces his Bill later on. I would like to record that as our opinion on Section 3.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 4.
(1) The compensation under the Principal Act where total or partial incapacity for work results from the injury shall be a weekly payment during the period of incapacity (except the first four days thereof) of an amount calculated in accordance with the appropriate provisions of this section, but not in any case exceeding thirty-five shillings.
(2) In fixing the amount of the weekly payment regard shall be had to any payment, allowance, or benefit which the workman may receive from the employer during the period of his incapacity.
(3) The weekly payment in cases of total incapacity shall be as follows:—
(a) in the case of a workman whose average weekly earnings during the previous twelve months, if he has been so long employed by the same employer, but if not, then for any less period during which he has been in the employment of the same employer do not exceed one pound, a sum not exceeding eighty per cent. of such average weekly earnings, or
(b) in the case of a workman whose average weekly earnings during the previous twelve months, if he has been so long employed by the same employer, but if not, then for any less period during which he has been in the employment of the same employer exceed one pound, a sum not exceeding seventy-five per cent. of such average weekly earnings.
(4) The weekly payment in cases of partial incapacity shall be as follows:—
(a) where the difference between the amount of the average weekly earnings (in this section referred to as the pre-accident average weekly earnings) of the workman during the previous twelve months, if he has been so long employed by the same employer, but if not, then for any less period during which he has been in the employment of the same employer and the average weekly amount (in this section referred to as the post-accident average weekly amount) which he is earning or is able to earn in some suitable employment or business after the accident does not exceed the sum of one pound, a sum equivalent to eighty per cent. of that difference, and
(b) where the difference between the amount of the pre-accident average weekly earnings and the post-accident average weekly amount exceeds one pound, a sum equivalent to seventy-five per cent. of that difference.
(5) For the purposes of this section the provisions of paragraph (2) of the First Schedule to the Principal Act shall have effect as if re-enacted herein.
I move Amendment 2. on behalf of the Chairman:—
Before Section 4 to insert a new section as follows:—
4.—No deduction shall be made under paragraph (1) (a) (i) of the First Schedule to the Principal Act as amended by the foregoing section, in respect of the amount of any weekly payments made under the Principal Act, so as to reduce the sum payable in respect of the children of the workman under the foregoing section, nor so as to reduce the amount payable under the Principal Act below two hundred pounds.
That is taken from the Report of the Committee?
Chairman
Yes. It harmonises entirely with the Report. The recommendations of the Departmental Committee have been departed from in the case of fatal accidents owing to the difficulty in giving effect to the Committee's wishes. Sections 2, 3 and 6 of the 1929 Bill give effect generally to the decision as to the amounts payable in fatal cases, but they do not include adequate safeguards in the case of an accident following which weekly payments are made for some time before death results, or where there is a redemption of such weekly payments before death occurs. Under the 1906 Act, weekly payments, or the redemption thereof, might be deducted from the compensation in cases of death. This amendment allows a sum paid by way of redemption of weekly payments to be deducted, and it limits in the terms of the amendment the setting off of weekly payments in this way.
This occurs in the report of the Committee. Does it occur in the English Act at all?
My recollection is that it does occur in the Act of 1925.
Chairman
Heretofore, it was possible to deduct the total amount of weekly payments, which would considerably diminish the amount payable to dependents in the case of death. This amendment limits the amount that can be deducted as a set-off against weekly payments before death.
The 1923 Act provides that no deduction shall be made under paragraph 1 (a) (i) as amended, so as to reduce the sum payable in respect of the children of the workman below £200.
Amendment agreed to.
New section ordered to be inserted in the Bill.
Chairman
As regards the next following amendments, the amendments in my name are aimed at altering the section. Deputy Good's amendment would be equivalent to a direct negative. I propose to take the amendments in my name first. I think that is the best procedure. The question will be then proposed: " That the section, as amended, stand part of the Bill," if my amendments be carried. Deputy Good's amendment will then be taken to that motion. I think that is the only procedure we could adopt in order to get discussion of all the amendments.
It makes it a little more difficult for me to amend the section and then to take my motion to delete the section as amended. That is not exactly my proposal. My proposal is to delete the section as it stands, and not to delete the amended section. On that basis, I think my proposal would not be in order.
Chairman
It would be in order under the procedure I suggest. That is the procedure that is followed in the House. I do not make any point about it. If we are satisfied that we are not creating a precedent, we could take Deputy Good's amendment first.
I am agreeable to that procedure if the Chairman and Deputies are satisfied.
Chairman
In the House the procedure has been as I outlined. Owing to the amendments in question being in my name, I should not like to give a ruling which would make it more difficult for Deputy Good to move his amendment. I will, therefore, allow Deputy Good to move now.
I move amendment 3:
Section 4, to delete the section and to substitute therefor the following section, that is:
4.—(1) In paragraph (1) (b) of the First Schedule to the Principal Act, thirty shillings shall be substituted for one pound as the maximum amount of the weekly payment.
(2) Where the maximum weekly payment payable under the Principal Act, as amended by the foregoing sub-section, to a workman who is totally incapacitated is less than twenty-five shillings, the workman shall be entitled during such incapacity to a weekly addition equal to one-half of of the diffrence between such maximum weekly payment and the sum of twenty-five shillings or his average weekly earnings, whichever is the less, and such additional shall, for all the purposes of the Principal Act, be treated as if it were part of the weekly payment.
(3) In the case of partial incapacity, the weekly payment shall, subject to the provisions of paragraph (3) of the said Schedule, be of the following amount:
(a) if the maximum weekly payment, had the incapacity been total incapacity, would have amounted to twenty-five shillings a week or upwards, the weekly payment in case of partial incapacity shall be one-half the difference between the amount of the average weekly earnings of the workman before the accident and the average weekly amount which he is earning or is able to earn in some suitable employment or business after the accident;
(b) if the maximum weekly payment would, had the incapacity been total incapacity, have amounted with such addition, if any, as is provided by sub-section (2) of this section to less than twenty-five shillings, the weekly payment in case of partial incapacity shall be a sum bearing the same proportion to the said difference as the said maximum weekly payment with such addition as aforesaid bears to the amount of the average weekly earnings of the workman before the accident.
(4) Proviso (b) to paragraph (1) of the said Schedule which relates to the amount of the weekly payment in the case of a workman who is under twenty-one years of age at the date of the injury shall cease to have effect.
My reason for putting forward this amendment is, in the first place because this is the first section in which you make a definite departure from the English Act of 1923. The amendment I have proposed is really the provision as it appears in the English Act. It is only right to point out that this section was an agreed clause in the English case. In the case of fatal accidents, it was agreed to raise the amount of compensation from £300, which was the figure in the original Bill, to £600. That was a considerable addition to the liability of employers and naturally would have led to an increased expenditure in insurance. It will be within the recollection of Deputies that, under the original Act, the maximum of compensation was limited to 20/-. The Act of 1917 was, of course, a war measure. All wages had increased and it was only reasonable that compensation should be increased accordingly. Under that Act, therefore, the amount of compensation was increased by 50 per cent. bringing the figure to 30/-. In 1919, a further measure was brought in. Wages were getting very near the peak point then and a further addition was made of 50 per cent. of the 50-per-cent. increase in the maximum compensation, bringing the figure to 35/-. That is what it stood at when the English Act was introduced. When considering the matter, before the introduction of the English measure, both sides—Labour included—agreed to make the maximum compensation 30/-. An understanding was arrived at with the insurance companies that by reducing the maximum compensation to 30/- no increase in the amount of the rates of insurance would be made. This is, accordingly, an agreed on section.
This country is very largely an agricultural country and this Bill applies to those engaged in agriculture. Wages in the agricultural industry are very much lower than the average wages on the other side, where employment is largely industrial. The average wage paid in Great Britain would be very much in excess of the average wage paid in Ireland. Notwithstanding that important fact, it is proposed, in this Bill, to pay the man who is incapacitated by injury 5/- a week more than the man who is getting a very much higher rate of wages on the other side. There are strong reasons why, in view of what I have said, we should reduce the amount provided in the English measure but I do not know of any reason why we should increase the figure in the English measure. In connection with the industry in which I am interested, when a builder in Dublin takes up work in a country place, as he is often called upon to do, he employs local unskilled labour. That unskilled labour is largely agricultural labour. In the ordinary course, the labourers would be engaged in agriculture and the average wage they would receive would be in the region of 20/- per week. When a builder employs these men, he pays them something more than that—about 30/- per week. That means that they get about 8d. per hour. If we take up work in country places, we have to employ, to a large extent, Dublin tradesmen. Dublin tradesmen lay it down—it is provided in some of their rules—that if they go to the country they must be allowed to work up to something like 66 hours per week, whereas they only work 44 hours in the city. They say that they have nothing else to do in these country towns and that if they were not allowed to earn something more than their ordinary wages, it would not be worth their while to go. If the tradesman works 66 hours, the labourer has, of course, to work 66 hours. That increases the wages paid to these local labourers enormously. They get 8d. per hour and when they work 66 hours it brings their wages to considerably more than double the amount they would ordinarily earn. When that labourer meets with an accident, he gets 75 per cent. of this big wage. The amount is far in excess of what he would earn in the ordinary course at agriculture.
The section refers to " the average weekly earnings during the previous twelve months." Can the Deputy give us any case in which one of these labourers would be working 66 hours a week for twelve months?
When these men meet with an accident, they get compensation far in excess of what their ordinary earnings would be. The result is that there is no disposition whatever on their part to go back to work. We find that this is becoming a tremendous penalty through malingering, generally by unskilled labour. That is the experience of all employers in the industry in which I am engaged. We think it is unwise in the national interest that there should be that incentive to malingering. As you increase this rate, you increase the incentive to malingering, and that is exceedingly bad. I could give you case after case to prove that. That is what I personally object to. I think you should not go any further than the English Act. If we go further than the English Act, we will have to pay increased charges for insurance, and, of course, those increased charges will mean increased burdens. For these reasons, I move to delete Section 4 and to substitute for it the corresponding section in the English Act.
There is another point to which I would like to advert. It is a point that will appeal to lawyers. In these Workmen's Compensation Acts it is desirable to keep legislation governing Northern Ireland and the Free State as nearly alike as possible. On the Border, there is considerable exchange and interchange of labour. It is further desirable, in view of legal precedents, to have what lawyers call " settled law " in connection with the various points that may arise. For these reasons I move my amendment.
I am opposed to the amendment. I think 35/- maximum is little enough. You must consider that under the English Act the workers are entitled to medical insurance and treatment. We, in Ireland, have to pay for that. In cases where the question of compensation arises, a doctor must be paid. That should be taken into account. As regards malingering, I have no sympathy with the malingerer, and I do not think any right-minded workman has. But I think an impartial medical examination should be able to decide whether a man is fit to work or not. I certainly will oppose the amendment. I believe 35/- is little enough for any man who is incapacitated, and that is the maximum figure. The man who has low wages will not benefit very much by this Bill.
I see that medical benefit is referred to in a later section and the medical expenses are increased. Can the Deputy tell us if there is any tangible reason why an injured workman—let us say, a tradesman—should be paid more in this country than he is paid in Great Britain?
He has free medical attendance in Great Britain.
I oppose this amendment on several grounds. For the reasons which I propose to give you, I say it is a retrograde step, and it is quite the contrary of what Deputy Good suggests—an advance on the advantages given to the workman under the English statute. This question as to the maximum figure was fully discussed by the Departmental Committee, and the section is drafted in conformity with the report of that Committee. It was suggested before that Committee that there should be the same maximum fixed in legislation here as there is in England. It was pointed out that in England the workman is entitled to considerable medical benefits, which he does not get here. It was the reasoned conclusion of the Committee that in order to put the workman here on the same basis as the workman in England—he should get 35/- maximum as against 30/- in England. As an argument against that, Deputy Good suggests that there is a section in this Bill increasing the amount payable for medical and burial expenses. In the Act of 1906, there is the sum of £10 given in the case of a workman whose injuries result in death. That £10 is the maximum for medical and burial expenses. I adopted the figure in the English Act—£15—because I wanted to avoid opposition in the House to this Bill as far as possible. I think £15 is not an adequate sum in the case of a man who may have been laid up for weeks before death. Fifteen pounds is an utterly insufficient sum to pay for medical and burial expenses in a case like that. I must confess that if I were drafting that Bill again, I would put in a larger sum than £15 to cover these contingencies. It is no argument to say that because there is provision for payment of £15 for medical and burial expenses in the case of a workman who dies as the result of accident, that is to be taken as a reason why the amount payable in cases of total incapacity should be cut down. That was gone into by the Committee, and I have been informed by the Chairman of that Committee, since I introduced this Bill, that a number of gentlemen representing the big insurance companies appeared before that Committee. I was so informed by Mr. Dickie, who was Chairman of that Committee. This matter was discussed with a view to having an expression from these gentlemen that there would be no increase in the premiums payable here if the provision contained in their Report were made law. The fact, as I understand it, is that the premiums were increased in quite recent times. The insurance representatives expressed the view that they would not ask for any increase on the existing terms by reason of the adoption of this Report. That is not a thing, of course, that binds them.
There is no guarantee of that kind.
I have said it is not a binding guarantee, but that was the attitude of the representatives of the great insurance companies. If it is any consolation to Deputy Good, I may inform him that I made inquiries from representatives of the different insurance companies in Dublin since the Bill was introduced, and that is their view—that there will not be any increase. Deputy Good speaks of this 35/- being a temptation to the malingerer. He speaks of the workman getting more by being on the sick list than he would get in wages. I think he is leaving out of account that the 35/- is a maximum and that no man, no matter what his wages are, can get anything like what he would earn unless the unfortunate person who is working for 15/- or 16/- a week.
Is 35/- in excess of what a man would normally earn as an agricultural labourer?
He could never reach 35/-. Deputy Good speaks of 35/- as if it were something new and strange as a maximum payment under these Acts. It is not, as a matter of fact. Workmen here at the present time are receiving that amount weekly in cases of total incapacity under the provisions of the War Addition Acts. The first Act provided that there should be an increase of a quarter on the terms of the 1906 Act. There was a maximum of £1 but the Act of 1919 made the addition three-quarters. So that a man who was entitled to receive £1 maximum under the 1906 Act was entitled, and is still entitled in this country, to 35/-—that is, three-quarters of the £1 added on. There is, therefore, nothing new in this sum of 35/-.
That was a war measure?
Yes.
And the Deputy seeks to stabilise a war Act.
It has been repealed in England and in Northern Ireland, but what I submit is that the permanent measure adopted in England and in Northern Ireland places the workman on precisely the same footing as we seek to place him here, because he has medical benefits which bring his maximum in these cases up to 35/-. I have here a table showing what the weekly amount payable under this Bill, if passed, would be in the case of total incapacity. I was absent from Dublin for the past few days and I could not have copies of the table made. Take the man who is earning 50/- per week or more. He would get the maximum of 35/-. A man who is earning 45/- would get 33/9; a man in receipt of 40/- would get 30/-; of 35/-, 26/3; of 30/-, 22/6; of 25/-, 18/9; of £1, 16/-; of 15/-, 12/-; of 10/-, 8/-.
It seems to me that under this Bill, in some cases, the workman will be worse off even than he is.
I do not think so.
Chairman
That is a matter of opinion.
Deputy Good speaks of this 35/- as if it were a flat rate and as if a man who was malingering could indefinitely draw this sum of money. That is leaving out of account the provisions of the section as it stands in the Bill. The Bill provides that the compensation under the Principal Act where total or partial incapacity results from the injury shall be a weekly payment of an amount calculated in accordance with the appropriate provisions of this section, but not in any case exceeding 35/- per week. Under subsection 3, it is set out that in cases of total incapacity the weekly payment shall be—" in the case of a workman whose average weekly earnings during the previous twelve months if he has been so long employed by the same employer, but if not, then for any less period which he has been in the employment of the same employer, do not exceed one pound, a sum not exceeding eighty per cent. of such average weekly earnings." If you look at the table from which I have quoted, the workman in receipt of 20/- per week would be entitled to 16/-. The next sub-section is as follows—" in the case of a workman whose average weekly earnings during the previous twelve months if he has been so long employed by the same employer, but if not, then for any less period during which he has been in the employment of the same employer, exceed one pound, a sum not exceeding seventy-five per cent. of such average weekly earnings." A man earning £1 can never get more than eighty per cent. of his earnings, and a man earning more than a pound can never get more than seventy-five per cent.
How would that apply in the case of a man employed by a builder in the country? The Act refers to employment for the previous twelve months by the same employer, " but if not, then for any less period during which he has been in the employment of the same employer." That may cut down the period to one week. If a man employed by a builder in the country were earning £2 5s. 0d., he would get seventy-five per cent. of that.
A sum not exceeding seventy-five per cent.
One week's employment with the builder would seem to entitle him to the maximum.
Chairman
It is the average that counts.
" If not, then for any less period during which he has been in the employment of the same employer." What does that qualification mean?
Chairman
That is, if he has not been employed during all those twelve months, if that was his only employment——
The sub-section does not seem to read in that way. It is not an average taken as between the earnings under the new employer and the old employer that is referred to here.
I oppose the amendment for the reasons I have stated.
Deputy Good has referred to the difficulties that may arise with regard to " settled law " in connection with some points. I think Deputy Rice could inform him that this only deals with the question of amount, and will raise no questions as regards settled law and precedents. In England, in a large number of cases, there were questions of malingering but insurance companies are pretty quick to refuse to pay in those cases. That means that the cases have to go to arbitration and there is a medical referee brought in. A number of cases have been put off with a 1d. per week. The law is there to deal with those cases, and if the law is enforced, there cannot be malingering. There have been cases in which insurance companies settled rather suddenly, on receiving reports from their own medical adviser that the cases might go on for a considerable time. In some of these cases, the illness or disability did not, in fact, continue for any considerable time. That is the only case I see of hardship and that arises from their own medical adviser's opinion. I think that it is likely that there will be competition between the insurance companies sufficient to keep the rates as low as they are at the present time.
There is additional liability.
I admit there is, but there is competition. As regards the other point, when a man is disabled, he has to be looked after and medical expense must be incurred.
The great misfortune is that there is malingering. Some of our best men are being ruined, so far as their own future is concerned, in that way.
That is a reflection on the medical profession.
You have machinery for dealing with these cases. Why do not the people who find their men malingering bring forward these cases?
The machinery has failed to deal with them.
I have known a number of cases where payments were stopped.
We can give you particulars of a number of cases of malingering. There are men whom I have been anxious to get back. When you look for them, you find that they are unemployable. They were excellent men, but they held out to get a lump sum. Some of them have become professionals from that standpoint. It is unfortunate to have to say that. I am anxious to prevent malingering. I am anxious to look after the interests of the workman. I am anxious that the workman should get a fair return from the insurance that is paid, but if the net result of all that is that in many cases the workman becomes unemployable, then it is a very serious thing and requires looking after in the workman's interest.
It is up to the employers, if they have any doubt, to refuse to pay and to have a medical referee called in.
The Deputy knows of cases of malingering.
I have known of cases where people have recovered more quickly than they were expected to do, after getting a lump sum, but that arose from the medical advice obtained by the insurance company that these cases might go on for a considerable time.
Does the Deputy know of cases of men who are unemployable now on account of this?
In a country town, I would not come in contact with many cases of that kind.
I could give the Deputy particulars of cases in Galway.
It is not fair that an honest workman who meets with an accident should be at a loss because of malingerers.
That is quite right. I am anxious to protect the honest workman, but I am also anxious not to put any temptation in his way to stay out. If a man stay out from five to eight months there is less tendency for him to get back into decent work again.
Thirty-five shillings a week is not an incentive to any right-minded man to remain away from his work. The man who would get that would be earning from 40/- to 60/- a week.
Chairman
He has to prove total incapacity before he can secure the maximum, and the point I think which should weigh with the Committee is that this is merely stabilising the position.
Stabilising the war wage.
Chairman
The present position.
Yes, but the present position, as Deputy Rice has pointed out, is that the wage was raised by reason of the advance of wages during the war. Now, this Bill stabilises that maximum wage which was given as compensation when wages were at the peak. Wages have fallen considerably during the meantime, but it is not proposed that this should be reduced in any way.
Chairman
The Departmental Committee went very carefully into that aspect of it, and put on the other side of the ledger the question of the medical benefits which the working man in England receives and which the Irish worker does not receive under the Act. Medical benefits are not in operation here.
That is the difficulty in dealing with an Act which proposes to deal with a problem of this character. Dealing with it in a private member's Bill where you have only half-a-dozen clauses is an absurdity in my mind. If we had the whole Bill before us we could consider those particular points and see whether it would be advisable to have our Act in accordance with the English Act. It is prohibited under this procedure.
There is nothing to prevent that in the Bill, which the Minister will introduce if the House considers proper.
The moment the Minister introduces his legislation he will tell you or me that the point has been already settled by Deputy Rice's Bill.
I am prepared to stand over it. That has been done in England and in Northern Ireland, and there is no reason why the people should be treated differently here.
That is my difficulty. The 35/- was reduced to 30/-.
They had the equivalent benefits.
Let us deal with the equivalent benefits. To deal with it in this way is objectionable. With regard to what Deputy Ruttledge said my amendment is taken from the English Act and Deputy Rice's proposal is taken from the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. There are no legal decisions at all on the recommendations of that Committee because they have never been law, but the section I have proposed is settled law in the English Act. That, I think, is of considerable difficulty and of importance. I feel very strongly that in this matter we are going to penalise industry and to injure the morale of the worker. I do not know whether it has ever been considered to make a distinction between tradesmen and unskilled labourers. We have no difficulty at all with malingering in the case of tradesmen. There is no incentive. Where the trademan earns £4 in Dublin he only gets a maximum of 35/- the same as a labourer. The labourer gets 25 per cent. less money. Therefore there is an incentive in one case that does not exist in the other. If Deputy Rice consults any other employer he will tell him that this problem of malingering is serious particularly in country districts where wages are low. The employee there receives a very much lower wage than he receives on the sick list.
It is not in the interest of the employer to cut this at all. The interest of the employer is to get efficiency. One employer's experience with regard to insurance may be different from another's. We are not on a flat rate. If we have good years and good experience we may get a little bit lower. It is like a man with a good or a bad life. Your rate of insurance is in accordance with your experience. It is not a thing that a workman contributed to in any way. It is just simply a thing we have to put in our estimates. I foresee in connection with small employers that it is a very big question.
Is it not your experience that some small employers are to blame for many of the accidents owing to bad management, bad scaffolding and all that kind of thing?
I do not think I can pass judgment on that.
It is only right to make these people pay proper attention to the safety of the men. I know of many cases where proper attention was not given and where, in consequence, many accidents occurred.
Chairman
Shall I put the amendment now?
I would like to discuss it at a little more length. It is quite obvious that we cannot finish this Bill to-day.
Chairman
The amendment has ben circulated to every member of the Committee. They understand the implications and Deputy Good has put it very clearly before us. We understand exactly what it is. I do not see what we would gain by postponing it. Would you not be inclined to come to a decision now?
We might give Deputies an opportunity of turning over the matter in their minds.
We have had that opportunity since we last met.
Would there be any chance of making a differentiation as between tradesmen and unskilled employees?
I do not think so because the rate of wages governs the amount of the weekly payments under the Act.
The tradesman gets 25 per cent. wages more than the labourer and they both get exactly the same allowance under the Act. They do not get the same wages.
The poor labourer has nothing else to fall back upon. If he is getting 44/- a week the maximum payment under the Bill is 35/-.
Would he not be much better off if he got the medical benefits?
Chairman
That would be a very far-reaching thing to introduce now.
Get him back into work.
There is one subsection of Deputy Good's amendment which is on a different matter altogether. That is No. (4):
Proviso (b) to paragraph (1) of the said Schedule which relates to the amount of the weekly payment in the case of a workman who is under twenty-one years of age at the date of the injury shall cease to have effect.
That is to repeal the distinction made against a minor workman under the Act of 1906. If Deputies look at the Schedule to the Bill that is done already in the third column. The proviso to paragraph (1) of the First Schedule is repealed.
Is that the last subsection of my amendment?
Yes. Your amendment, which is to take away the distinction between the minor workmen and others, is already done by the Bill in the Schedule of repeals.
Chairman
That is the final paragraph in Deputy's Good's amendment.
Is there any compensation given to a man under twenty-one?
Yes, under this Bill he is treated in the same way as if he were over twenty-one. I think what Deputy Good wanted was to repeal that. At all events, I have done that in the Bill so that the workman under 21 will no longer be on a different footing.
Which particular section repeals it?
The Schedule.
Chairman
Will we adjourn after this amendment is disposed of?
I certainly object to rushing.
Chairman
The matter has got very careful consideration.
I admit that the amendment has been circulated, but the arguments in support of the amendments have not, to my mind, received careful consideration.
Chairman
Is it the wish of the Committee that we adjourn now?
I do not think that any useful purpose would be served by postponement.
You are going to penalise industry.
Chairman
The Departmental Committee, of course, gave this mature consideration and the employers were heavily represented. This Bill embodies their recommendations.
This particular section is the only section that is in accordance with the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. All the others follow the English Act. I wanted this particular sestion to follow the English Act too.
Chairman
There does not seem to be much use in discussing it further.
I can only enter my protest.
Question—To delete Section 4 and substitute Amendment No. 3 on the Order Paper—put and declared lost.
The Committee adjourned till Wednesday, 17th April.