In Committee on Finance. - Workmen's Compensation Bill, 1933—Report Stage. – Dáil Éireann (8th Dáil) – Thursday, 30 Nov 1933

An Ceann Comhairle

I understand that it is the intention of the Minister to recommit this Bill for the purpose of dealing with amendments.

Mr. Costello

On behalf of Deputy Dillon I move amendment 1:—

In page 5, lines 17-18, Section 5 (2), to delete paragraph (b) (iii).

I fancy from recollection that the Minister undertook to consider the question of casual labourer. I do not know if he has taken any steps to do so since the Committee Stage.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think I gave any indication that I was prepared to accept this amendment.

Mr. Lemass

I have gone through the whole Bill, following the discussion that took place, and I examined every suggestion that was made in great detail. This is not one of the changes suggested.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment 2:—

In page 5, at the end of Section 5, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(4) Reference in this Act to a workman who has been injured shall, where the workman is dead, be construed as including references to his legal personal representative, or to his dependants, or other person to whom or for whose benefit compensation is payable.

This is a drafting amendment. One of its purposes is to enable dependants of deceased workmen to obtain from the employer a list of the earnings of the deceased. It is desirable that that right should be given to the personal representative of a deceased workman.

Mr. Dockrell

The amendment seems all right, but one story is very good until you hear another. The reference in the amendment is to the "legal personal representative" but in amendment 6 would that mean the deceased workman's personal representative who was under 15 years at that date? As I am afraid that there may be other questions involved, I suggest that the Minister should look more closely into this matter.

Mr. Lemass

Obviously amendment No. 6 can only be construed as giving a claim for compensation to the personal representative of the deceased workman's dependants.

Mr. Lynch

I move amendment 3:—

In page 5, line 45, at the end of Section 6 after the word "half-sister" to add the words "orphan nephew or orphan niece dwelling in the house of the workman and maintained solely by him."

I raised this matter on the Committee Stage with a view to extending the definition of "members of the family," and the Minister said he would look into it. A case had already been made for bringing into the definition of "members of the family" an adopted child. There are many instances where a workman has taken a child of a brother or sister for the purpose of rearing it. That child is brought up in the house as one of the family and would be entirely dependent on the earnings of the workman. I put down the amendment to give the Minister an opportunity of saying what has been the result of his investigations in the interval.

Mr. Lemass

I am quite satisfied that the case for including an adopted son or daughter is unanswerable, and I asked that an amendment should be prepared to cover the point. I have been informed that the drafting of such an amendment will present considerable difficulty, and could not be produced in time to discuss it now. If the Deputy will take my word, that I am going to insert such an amendment in the Seanad, he might withdraw the amendment before the Dáil.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment 6:—

In page 5 to insert before Section 7 (2), two new sub-sections as follows:—

(2) In this Act the expression "adult dependant" when used in relation to a deceased workman means a dependant of such workman who is not under the age of fifteen at the date of the death of such workman.

(3) In this Act the expression "juvenile dependant" when used in relation to a deceased workman means a dependant of such workman who is under the age of fifteen at the date of the death of such work man.

This amendment covers a series of amendments and they arise out of a decision given in a recent case in Great Britain. It is proposed to substitute the word "child" by "juvenile dependant." You will then have the term "adult dependant" and "juvenile dependant," and both fully defined in the Bill.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair had some doubt about allowing amendment 7 to be moved on the Fourth Stage, and still graver doubts as regards amendment 34. Amendments proper to Report Stage are amendments withdrawn or not moved in Committee, or amendments arising out of proceedings in Committee, and consequent on a Ministerial undertaking to meet some point raised, or on a Ministerial undertaking to Deputies to table amendments dealing with specific points. The Chair has, however, decided to allow both the amendments in question to be moved, since the Minister, as reported in columns 80 and 81 of the Official Debates for the 15th November, 1933, seemed to invite amendments.

Mr. Norton

I move amendment 7:—

In page 5, Section 7 (2), to delete all words after the word "necessaries," line 59, to the end of line 60 and substitute the words "and amenities of life suitable for persons in his class of position, and the expression ‘necessaries and amenities' shall be deemed to include necessary provision for old age, sickness, infirmity, funeral expenses, and other provisions of a like nature by insurance or otherwise."

On the Committee Stage the discussion ranged around the clear intention of the section to limit the compensation which was to be paid to a person partially dependent on the earnings of a deceased workman. It was suggested to the Minister that the effect was to make it more difficult for people to get compensation, and that, in addition, the amount of compensation would be based on an extremely narrow margin. It was mentioned that if a son was contributing £1 or 30/- weekly to the family wages fund, where he was living with a father or mother, they would have to go to court to show that the money was, in fact, necessary, and was spent on the necessaries of life for that household. Unless the father or mother were able to convince the court that the money was so spent, and that no portion was saved, it would not be possible for them to obtain compensation in respect of any portion of the income from the son which represented either savings to the family, or expenditure on commodities which could not be described as necessaries of life. The Attorney-General, on the last occasion, came to the assistance of the Minister and told me particularly that I ought to be quite satisfied with this particular section, as drafted, because he said the Labour Party in Britain had been quite satisfied with this particular section. I think the Attorney-General made three speeches on it and in each of them he took great pains to tell me that this section represented all that was desirable from the point of view of the British Labour Party and that, as a matter of fact, they apparently did not desire anything better. Not having the information at my disposal then, I did not contradict the statement of the Attorney-General, but I have since been able to get some information to show what the British Labour Party's view is on it and what the view of the Trade Union Congress in Great Britain is.

While the Attorney-General would have us believe on the last occasion that the viewpoint of the British Labour Party that this phraseology borrowed by the framers of this Bill from the present Act represented everything that was ideal, I have discovered that, in 1927, the publicity department of the British Trade Union Congress issued a pamphlet described "The New Bill for Workmen's Compensation as framed by the General Committee of the Trade Union Congress General Council and Parliamentary Labour Party." This might well be held to represent the thoughts and views of the British Labour Party on that matter, and these thoughts, on the last occasion, were very acceptable to the Attorney-General. He was quite willing to take them as reasonable, because he conceived them to be views expressed on sub-section (2), but I can give him evidence now that that is not the view of the Labour Party at all, and when they came to draft their own particular amendment and Workmen's Compensation Bill, they drafted a section very much wider than the section in this particular Bill. On that occasion they did not stop, as this Bill does, with a reference to the provision of the ordinary necessaries of life, but went on and included amenities, setting out categorically certain specific kinds of amenities that should be included. If the Attorney-General still has the same high opinion of the British Labour Party as he had on that occasion, I hope that he has induced the Minister to accept this amendment. The purpose of it is to leave the existing position in respect of workmen's compensation alone, to leave alone the position that has existed for 30 years in which a person, going into the courts and seeking workmen's compensation, knows where he is, because of the judgments which have been recorded on the clause in the 1906 Act.

Under this section, it seems to me that the father of a deceased son, who previously received a certain weekly income from the son, will, in future, not merely have to go into the court, tell the court his son has lost his life and that he was partially dependent on him, but in addition will have to bring in a family budget and a family balance sheet, and will have to be able to show that in respect of that son he did not save one farthing from his income. If he should have got, as I said before, 30/- from the son and could show that he spent only 25/- on necessaries, the other 5/- will not be allowed for the purpose of computing his compensation, and it will not be necessary to say that it was spent on getting any kind of delicacies or amenities other than necessaries for the family. If the Minister wants to clarify the existing position, he should certainly not clarify it against the dependants of an injured workman, and if he cannot see his way to leaving the existing position alone, if he is going to amend the existing position, he should do it in such a way as to include not merely the bare necessaries of life but should also make provision for including amenities which, in my opinion, will not be included in the phraseology in the Bill. This amendment is a very reasonable one. It merely asks that the amenities of life ought to be regarded as something to which the dependants of a deceased workman were entitled and the specific amenities are not amenities that anybody could reasonably object to. I hope the Minister will see his way to accept this.

Mr. Lemass

Since this matter was discussed in Committee here, Deputy Norton is not the only one who has been carrying out researches. I have been carrying out certain researches, too, and I find that, in fact, I am the only person in the House who has taken a consistent line in this matter throughout. Deputy Norton should not have stopped at 1927. There was a Bill introduced here in 1929 by Deputy Rice — a Private Members' Bill — to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act and that Bill, having got a second reading here, went to a select committee, of which I was a member. It was only after the debate here that I remembered what had happened there. I had been somewhat confused by the vehement assertion made by Deputy McGilligan, and supported by Deputy Costello, that the inclusion of a sub-section of this kind in any Bill for which they were likely to be responsible had never been decided upon, and I think that Deputy Costello told us that he would have vehemently opposed it, while Deputy McGilligan said that if I had found such a section in a draft Bill in my office when I became Minister, it represented very hasty thought and was in no sense to be regarded as the final and considered opinion of his Government or his Party. Having left the Dáil after that debate, I knew there was a catch somewhere, and I found the catch when I remembered what had happened at the meetings of the select committee on Deputy Rice's Private Members' Bill, when, on behalf of Deputy McGilligan, Deputy Rice proposed the insertion in that Bill of precisely this section, word for word as it appears in the present draft. The proposition was carried, and carried unanimously, with the approval of the official representative of the Labour Party present on the committee. That committee met in 1929 and I must assume either that he had never heard of the British Trade Union Congress Draft Bill in 1927 or that if he had heard of it, he did not agree with it.

However, there is no good making points of that kind except merely to emphasise that any objection to this section has, so far as I am aware, developed only since the Bill came before the Dáil. Its inclusion in the Bill, based as it was on the recommendation of our committee, the recommendation of the British Committee and the unanimous support given to it by all Parties in 1929, appears to me to be thoroughly justified. Since the discussion, however, I have had an exhaustive search made of the various decisions which have been given in Great Britain, arising out of this section. I referred to the fact that the section was originally copied from an American statute, and I indicated the nature of the interpretation which had been placed on the same phrase in the United States courts. It is quite clear from the decisions which have been recorded in the British courts that the section has not operated to the detriment of the workman. It has, in fact, been interpreted as if the words suggested by Deputy Norton were added, with one exception, and I agree that in respect of that exception, there is a case for amendment of the section. In one of the British judgments it was held that any part of the family expenditure on insurance premiums could not be regarded as expenditure on a necessary of life in respect of which compensation would be payable.

I gave that matter very considerable thought and I think there is a case for an amendment here. One can picture the case of a family consisting of a father and a number of sons as well as other members, in which the father as head of the family would have insured himself by taking out a life policy for the purpose of securing that a certain sum would be payable to his dependants on his death, thus providing them against hardship. His ability to pay the premiums on that policy could conceivably depend upon the contributions given him by his sons. If one of his sons is killed in an industrial accident, and the contribution is consequently cut off, it might not be possible, or it would not be possible with the same ease, to maintain the premium payments on that policy. I think there is a case there, that whereas the section might have been interpreted to cover such cases, we must have regard to the fact that in a particular case in Great Britain a decision to the contrary was given. That being so, I think we should put the matter beyond doubt here by an amendment of the sub-section. I am having that matter considered with a view to producing a suitable amendment and having it inserted in the Bill in the other House.

I should like it to be clear that the amendment would be designed to secure that the expenses of the family in the payment of premiums on insurance in respect of life policies, whether ordinary life or industrial life, would be regarded as outgoings on the necessaries of life. The other matters mentioned are old age, sickness and infirmity, and other provisions of a like nature. There is, of course, a certain provision made by the State against old age, and I doubt very much if it is the practice in any workingclass family to insure against old age. There is compulsory State insurance against sickness and infirmity and in these cases the necessity for insurance does not exist, at least, in so far as the necessity for insurance exists, insurance must take place——

Mr. Norton

Assume that the dwelling house is on the other side of the Border and the converse case could arise.

Mr. Costello

Mr. Costello

I am pretty sure that this was a tariff company. It was a very big British company. However, that is only a side issue. I want to press on the Minister this fact that he has not appreciated that the necessity for reciprocal arrangement between this country and Great Britain or Northern Ireland or any foreign company arises out of one fact — the desirability and the necessity for having machinery to make effective the award of compensation. That is the only necessity for having an international arrangement. The cases that I have put to this House and that I have envisaged in my amendment are cases in which there is no necessity for international arrangement, if there were effective machinery to give effect to the judgments of the courts. Take the case where the workman is living in the Free State and the employer is living in the Free State. The service of any documents can be effected under the rules of court under the law of the Free State, and if a judgment is given, that judgment can be given effect to in the ordinary process by the courts of law in the Free State.

The Minister referred to a Northern Ireland employer coming to Sligo and employing a workman there as the reason why it might be necessary to have an international arrangement with Northern Ireland, as you have no machinery at present in existence by which you can serve that man with a process to enable him to be brought before the courts. That is in the first case and in the second case you have no machinery to give effect to a decree of the courts if a decree is obtained. In such cases arrangements with Northern Ireland are necessary, but cases that require no international arrangement and which if international arrangements are made will not come within the scope of this arrangement are cases in which the workman and the employer are living in the Free State and the accident takes place outside the Free State. There is no necessity for reciprocal arrangements in that case.

Mr. Lemass

If the contract of service were made in Northern Ireland, a workman injured in Northern Ireland has an action against the employer, and if the employer has assets there, these assets can be distrained, and if that is done here again, and the man gets compensation twice, are we acting fairly to the employer?

Mr. Costello

I should say not, and the amendment I put down will cover that. There should be no double right of action. What I want to impress on the Minister is that you are dealing with a purely domestic matter where a contract of service is made in the Free State between an employer living in the Free State, and a workman living in the Free State, the only element of extra territoriality in the entire transaction consists of the fact that the accident takes place outside our jurisdiction. Everything else is within our jurisdiction and to state that in such cases an international arrangement is necessary is, to my mind, stating a thing that I cannot understand.

Mr. V. Rice

I have listened to the arguments of the Minister and I really fail to understand his objection to the amendment. He mentioned the necessity for an international agreement and he quotes Mr. Justice Hanna and the Workmen's Compensation Committee in support of his objection. Will we not have precisely the same result as regards Workmen's Compensation if we wait for an international agreement? I fail to understand why workmen who are employed under contract in this country but who are outside the jurisdiction of the Free State should not be protected in regard to injuries arising outside the Free State. I think in the case to which Deputy Costello referred about an employee in Liverpool meeting with an injury there in the course of his employment and who is the employee of a man living in this country that he should be entitled to recover compensation in this country. Why should he not be entitled because his employer raises the point that the accident occurred outside the jurisdiction of the Saorstát courts? I think that the number of cases where accidents may occur outside of Great Britain or Northern Ireland to a person who has no contract with an employer here will be negligible. I would urge on the Government that it is their duty to protect our own nationals. I cannot see why the Minister must wait for an international convention to enable him to say why a workman here who in the course of his employment meets with an accident in Northern Ireland or Great Britain should not be compensated as a workman in this country. I think the Minister ought to accept the amendment.

Mr. Norton

I would like to know from the Minister whether he anticipates that any difficulties will arise in connection with the setting up of machinery for making this reciprocal arrangement as between Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State. These are the countries that will be chiefly affected. I can see that there is a strong case for doing something in this Bill for meeting that sort of a semi-domestic problem around the Border, a case for doing something in respect to a certain amount of interchangeability between employment here and employment in Great Britain. I can see also that the matter will not be dealt with fully by Deputy Costello's amendment. In many respects the Convention which was ratified by the Free State some five or six years ago will provide machinery for enabling all those international matters to be dealt with in a much more comprehensive way, but it may take quite a considerable time to bring that about. As a matter of fact it may be impossible to do much in respect to some countries, unless there is a certain amount of interchangeability. Perhaps the Minister would examine the matter before the Bill goes to the Seanad, and see if it would be possible to get the Convention arrangement into working order so far as Great Britain and Northern Ireland are concerned, and if no abnormal delay seems likely to arise perhaps he would reconsider the question in relation to both these Administrations.

I am perfectly satisfied with that.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendments 9 and 10:—

9. —In page 7, Section 18 (2) (a), to insert in line 57 before the word "dependant" the word "adult," and to insert in line 58 before the word "dependants" the word "adult."

10. —In page 8, Section 18 (2) (b), lines 7 and 8, to delete the words "child under the age of fifteen years at the time of his death" and substitute the words "juvenile dependant"; in line 10 to delete the word "child" and substitute the word "dependant"; in lines 11 and 12 to delete the words "children under the age of fifteen years at the time of his death" and substitute the words "juvenile dependants"; and in line 14 to delete the word "children" and substitute the word "dependants."

These are consequential on amendment 6.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment 11 is out of order, and cannot be moved.

Amendment No. 12:—

In page 10, Section 22 (1), lines 57, 58 and 59, to delete the words "member of the family dependent on his earnings but does not leave any child or children dependent on his earnings" and substitute the words "dependant but does not leave any juvenile dependant"; in page 11, lines 5, 6 and 7, to delete the words "member of the family dependent on his earnings and also leaves a child or children dependent on his earnings" and substitute the words "dependant and also leaves a juvenile dependant"; and in page 11, lines 14, 15 and 16, to delete the words "member of the family dependent on his earnings but leaves any child or children dependent on his earnings" and substitute the words "dependant but leaves a juvenile dependant."—(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.)

Agreed to.

Amendment No. 13:—

In page 11 to delete Section 22 (3). —(Aire Tionnscail agus Tráchtála.)

Agreed to.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment No. 14:—

In page 11 to delete Section 24 and substitute the following section:—

(1) Subject to the provisions of this section if a workman, who has so far recovered from the injury as to be fit for employment of a certain kind, has failed to obtain employment and it appears to the court either—

(a) that, having regard to all the circumstances, it is probable that the workman would, but for the continuing effects of the injury, be able to obtain work in the same grade in the same class of employment as before the accident; or

(b) that his failure to obtain employment is a consequence, whether wholly or mainly, of the injury,

the court shall order that the workman's incapacity shall be treated as total incapacity resulting from the injury for such period, and subject to such conditions, as may be provided by the order, without prejudice, however, to the right of review conferred by this Act.

(2) No order shall be made under this section if it appears to the court that the workman has not taken all reasonable steps to obtain employment.

Mr. Minch

That is not disfigurement; it is physical incapacity. They are two very distinct things.

Mr. Dockrell

I think that, although Deputy Norton did not mention it when he cited the case of a female assistant in a shop who received facial disfigurement, he must have had the matrimonial market in view, because certainly the case is covered under the Workmen's Compensation Act. Compensation is awardable for obvious disfigurement which reduces the chances of getting work; for example, the removal of an eye, whether its sight had been previously impaired (Martin v. Barnell, 1910) or whether it was previously but not apparently a blind eye; (Ball v. Hunt, 1912), when Lord Loreburn said: "There is incapacity for work when a man has a physical defect which makes his labour unsaleable in any market reasonably accessible to him, and there is partial incapacity for work when such a defect makes his labour unsaleable for less than it would otherwise fetch." The amendment as proposed introduces common law. Who is going to decide what is disfigurement? If a man lost the top of his finger or got a scar on his hand or face is that disfigurement? I think that the case is perfectly covered under the present law.

The Deputy will remember that when this amendment was before the House on the Committee Stage I indicated agreement with it, more or less, and I suggested that if he withdrew it I might produce one of the same kind at this stage. When I went into the matter I found that it would be most inadvisable to do so. The difficulty I saw was that the employer would have no effective means of knowing whether all the persons entitled to compensation as dependants were, in fact, associated with the agreement presented to him. This section only applies to cases where there are dependants. Two or three people might come along saying that they were dependants of a deceased workman and that they had agreed amongst themselves on the compensation to be awarded. They might be doing that fraudulently, by leaving out other persons with claims as good as theirs. The employer would have no means of checking such an agreement, and consequently, I think it much better to leave the Bill as it is, requiring the agreement to come before the court. The court has power to inquire into all the circumstances and if it passes an agreement the employer is secured.

Mr. Dockrell

The employer only pays the money into court and it is then open to the court to be satisfied as to how it will be paid out. The workman in most cases is represented but, in any case, the employer has to pay the money into court. I suggest that the matter will come before the registrar and in that way it will lead to the money reaching the relatives quicker than any other way.

Mr. V. Rice

While I do not say so definitely, I am under the impression that an arrangement of this kind is in operation at present under the Rules of the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. No doubt when this Bill is passed similar rules will be made, releasing the employer from liability and letting the matter be decided by a judge.

Mr. Dockrell

I leave the matter in the Minister's hands.

Mr. Lemass

I think it is better to leave the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Rice

I move amendment 23:—

In page 21, to delete Section 55 and substitute a new section as follows:—

Every redemption agreement, commutation agreement, and agreement by way of compromise shall be submitted to the court for approval before registration, and where it appears to the court that the lump sum is inadequate or that for any other reason that seems sufficient the agreement should not be registered, the court may make an order directing that such agreement shall not be registered.

Mr. Rice

No. I think I have answered the Minister's point in that. This is an agreement finally determining the workman's rights and it should be a judicial act and it should be done in the presence of a judge.

In page 25, Section 66 (1), to delete paragraph (d) and to substitute the following paragraph:—

(d) where—

(i) an injured master, seaman, or apprentice is discharged or left behind in any country outside Saorstát Eireann, and

(ii) proceedings are taken under this Act by or in respect of such master, seaman or apprentice, and

(iii) the deposition of any witness respecting the circumstances and nature of the injury has been taken in any such country on oath by a person entitled by the law to take in that country affidavits for use in matters before the High Court, and

(iv) such deposition purports to be sealed with the seal and to have affixed thereto the signature of such person,

such deposition shall, upon due proof that such witness is not in Saorstát Eireann, be received in such proceedings as prima facie evidence of the matters stated therein without proof of the seal or signature of such person or of the status or official character of such person.

This is designed to simplify and make clear the procedure under which depositions can be taken abroad in relation to an accident taking place abroad.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment 28:—

In page 25, line 39, Section 66 (1) (c), to insert after the word "death" the words "by accident."

This is an amendment suggested by Deputy Costello. I asked him to hold it over for Report Stage and it appears now in both our names.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendments 30, 31, 32 and 33:

In page 34, Second Schedule, Rule 1, line 3, to delete the words "member of the family" and subtitute the word "dependant."

In page 34, Second Schedule, Rule 2, lines 35, 36 and 37, to delete the words "member of the family wholly dependent on his earnings but leaves any adult members of the family" and substitute the words "dependant wholly dependent on his earnings but leaves any adult dependant"; in line 41, to delete the words "any of such adult members of the family" and substitute the words "such adult dependant"; and in line 44, to delete the words "members of the family" and substitute the words "dependant or, if the workman leaves two or more adult dependants, such dependants."

In page 34, Second Schedule, Rule 3, lines 45 and 46, to delete the words "child or children and such child was or all such children" and substitute the words "juvenile dependant or juvenile dependants and such dependant was or all such dependants"; in sub-paragraph (b), lines 54 and 58, to delete the word "child" and substitute in each line the words "juvenile dependant"; in page 35, sub-paragraph (c), lines 3, 5, 12, 17, 19, 20, 27, 32, 34, 39, 41, 42, 49, 54, 56, and 61, to delete the word "children" and substitute in each line the words "juvenile dependants"; in page 36, sub-paragraph (c), lines 1, 6, 8, 10, 17, 23, 25, 31, 34, 39, and 41, to delete the word "children" and substitute in each line the words "juvenile dependants"; in sub-paragraph (d), lines 43 and 49, to delete the word "child" and substitute in each line the words "juvenile dependant"; in sub-paragraph (e), line 55, to delete the word "children" and substitute the words "juvenile dependants"; and in subsection (2), lines 4 and 6, to delete the word "child" and substitute in each line the words "juvenile dependant."

In page 37, Second Schedule, Rule 4, lines 8 and 9, to delete the words "child or children and such child or children" and substitute the words "juvenile dependant or juvenile dependants and such juvenile dependant or juvenile dependants"; and in line 13, to delete the words "child or all such children" and substitute the words "juvenile dependant or all such juvenile dependants."

These are all consequential on amendment No. 6.

Mr. Norton

I move amendment No. 34:—

In page 38, line 8, third schedule, rule 2, to delete the word "thirty" and substitute the word "thirty-five."

The object of this amendment is to try to preserve the existing maximum of compensation at 35/- per week. The Bill reduces the maximum from 35/- per week and fixes it at 30/- per week. The Minister in the course of the discussion on the Bill tried to defend many things on the grounds that they were recommended to him by the Committee. The Committee, in this particular instance, recommended the continuance of the existing maximum of 35/- per week and in this particular respect the Minister has thrown overboard completely the recommendation of the Committee in respect to the maximum compensation. The Minister tried to defend his action in this matter on the Committee Stage by saying that when the Committee recommended the continuance of the 35/- per week maximum, they did so in 1926 and the Minister stated that the cost of living was higher then than it is now and that probably if they were dealing with the matter now they would not have recommended the continuance of the maximum at that figure. While saying that in one breath, the Minister has also pointed out that he is not responsible for the shameful delay in introducing this Bill and putting into operation the recommendations of the Committee since 1926.

The Minister cannot have it both ways. He should not reduce the maximum compensation from 35/- or he is not sorry that this Act was not introduced in 1926. If it were introduced in 1926, the maximum of 35/- would have been inserted in the Bill in all likelihood because this reduction could not be justified then on the grounds that the cost-of-living index figure had fallen. That maximum of 35/-, if it had been put into the Bill in 1926 or 1927, would be in operation to-day and would presumably continue in operation, taking no notice of fluctuations in the cost-of-living index figure from time to time. I think that that case of the Minister is a particularly weak one because whatever figure had been put into the Bill would have taken no notice of the tendency of the cost-of-living figure any more than the figures which the Minister is now putting into the Bill will take any notice of movements in the cost of living once the Bill is passed. The argument of the movement in the cost of living is a particularly thin one to use in support of his attitude.

In all European countries except three there is a maximum payment. In the three cases where there is no maximum payment it is difficult to make a comparison with conditions here. In Spain there is no maximum payment, but there is no weekly payment either. The compensation paid to a totally incapacitated workman is his earnings for two years paid in a lump sum and then he is finished. In Russia there is no maximum payment, but the percentage is 66? in all cases. In certain particular cases it rises to 100 per cent., but the general percentage is 66?. In part of Poland there appears to be no maximum payment. The position in that country in the year when the report was published was, apparently, that no national law had been passed and in each part of the country the law which had operated under the previous régime was still in operation. In one part of it there was no maximum payment provided for, but again the percentage was 66? up to a certain figure, and 22 2/9th beyond that figure. In all other cases the maximum payment, in so far as I have been able to ascertain the current rate of exchange, appears to be substantially lower than ours. It may be that I have calculated the rates of exchange in some countries incorrectly. In some cases they appear to be extraordinarily low indeed and in no way to be compared with the maximum proposed under the Bill.

Therefore, I think it is correct to say, taking all the factors into account, and taking into account the other changes which are being made in the workmen's compensation code, almost everyone of which is very definitely in favour of the worker, that the workmen's compensation code in this country is more progressive, more advanced, than that operating anywhere else. It is, I think, not something that we can take special pride in that we are in the forefront of social legislation of this kind, because I hope we shall always be so. I am satisfied that we are not inflicting any injustice upon anybody in effecting the change proposed in the Bill. Taking into account that the reduction in the maximum is much less than the actual reduction in the cost of living over the period since the maximum was fixed in 1917, and offset by the fact that the percentage of payment has been increased from 50 to 75, I think that the Bill can be fully justified in every way.

The fact that the operation of the Bill is likely to involve additional payment upon employers has already been generally recognised, and those employers who insure against their liabilities under this Bill have also taken that into account. It may be that an attempt may be made to justify an increase in the insurance premium on that account. I am not satisfied that there is justification for such an increase. I mean that the existing charges are not unduly low, having regard to the risk that arises here. We propose to take that matter up with the insurance companies doing this business when the Bill is law. We must, however, take into account that very frequently the operation of this law has for small employers almost a disastrous effect. Cases have been known where a small employer, whose workman has been injured, has been completely ruined through the compensation he had to pay. Deputies, I am certain, have experience themselves of that. Of course, the rate of compensation fixed by this Bill is applicable in every case. One must not always have in mind the big industrial concerns with large resources and with a large number of people employed. One must take into account the individual who employs a man for a job or even the householder who employs a casual worker to clean windows or clean up his garden. In each case there is a definite liability imposed under this Bill and the compensation payable is the same in all cases. We must, therefore, not seek to move too fast in matters of this kind and I submit that in this legislation we are moving to the front of the world in this type of legislation and that we should be content to keep in that position without going too far ahead.

I said there is no injustice because the new rate of compensation calculated on the new basis applies only in cases of accidents which occur after the Bill becomes law. Any workman who has been injured prior to the passage of the Act and who gets compensation at the maximum rate provided for under the existing law will continue to get compensation at that maximum rate. The Bill definitely provides that no reduction in the payments now being made to anybody can result from its passage. The new rate applies only to new cases and, having regard to the different circumstances existing now from those that existed when the rate was fixed; having regard to the new method of calculation, which is more favourable to the worker, and having regard to the fact that the compensation is in any case higher than appears to be made in any country and, particularly, in the neighbouring country of Great Britain, I think we can justify the provision in the Bill.

Mr. Norton

The Minister is relying completely on what Britain does as his justification for this Bill. That is an extraordinary philosophy for the Minister. He states that he is paying more under this Bill than Britain is paying under its Workmen's Compensation Act. The Minister is, however, reducing the rates of compensation which exist to-day. To-day, a person can get seven-eighths of his weekly pay, subject to a maximum of 35/- per week, if he meets with an accident. The Minister says he is going to pay 75 per cent. That means that he is not only reducing the proportion from seven-eighths to 75 per cent. but he is reducing the maximum from 35/- to 30/-. The Minister may say that he is paying more than is paid in Great Britain to-day but he is reducing the rate of compensation that is payable here to-day. That is not justified by the statement that the Minister is doing something better than Great Britain, or as good as Britain, is doing. The Minister read out a number of cases of legislation in other countries and seemed to get some satisfaction from what he read. He should have told the House what the compensation is in Australia under current legislation. He should have told us what the maximum is in New Zealand. He might have got a copy of the Workmen's Compensation Act which is in operation in the State of Ontario. These do not make nearly as good a comparison as the quotations which he gave regarding Czecho-Slovakia or some portion of Poland. If this Bill had been passed in 1927, as was intended, this 35/- a week compensation would have been continued and would be law to-day. Advantage should not be taken of the delay in introducing the Bill.

The Minister quoted the case of a small employer who was ruined because he had to pay compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act. I do not know what his purpose was in quoting that case. If there were provision in our legislation for compulsory insurance, he would not be ruined. Anybody who has any experience of workmen's compensation knows perfectly well that, while the insurance rates may be higher than they ought to be, they are not so serious as to cripple anybody. If the man the Minister refers to took the precaution of insuring his workman against accident, as a provident employer would do and as an employer who had any regard for his workman and his dependents would do, he would not have been overtaken by the ruin which engulfed him. The Minister states that he has a suspicion that the compensation provisions of the Bill will increase premiums. The Committee which reported on the matter did not think that at all. The Committee reported in 1925. In 1929, the matter was referred back to them by Deputy McGilligan, who was then Minister for Industry and Commerce. On the 16th October, 1929, the Committee reported again. This is portion of their report:

"We had reason to believe, at the time, that the changes we recommended would not, of themselves, necessitate any increase in premiums so far as could be foreseen. Statistics now before us furnish some additional confirmation of the view we took in 1926 of the probable effect of the changes we recommended. Thus, the table on page 15 of the statistical return for 1927 shows that our proposed alteration in the waiting period may be expected to have the effect of shortening the period for which compensation is available."

The Report goes on to refer to the tendency in Britain to shorten the duration of absences from work by extension of the waiting period. The Report proceeds:—

"The same effects may be anticipated in the Saorstát and, of course, the shortening of the duration of cases means a reduction of the average amount of compensation paid."

The Committee were not only satisfied with what they recommended in 1926 but, on reconsideration of the matter in 1929, when apparently an effort was made to stampede them from their original report, they were satisfied that the changes in the law which they recommended would not necessitate any increase in premiums. They stated that they were reinforced in that view by the statistical return for 1927, which was then made available to them. I do not think that any extra premiums which may become payable will be very serious. The way to deal with that problem is not to reduce the compensation payable to the workman, but to devise ways and means of meeting any attempt by foreign companies to charge premiums in respect of workmen's compensation which are not justified by the risks involved.

Amendment put and negatived.

Mr. Lemass

I move amendment 35:—

In page 38, to delete the whole table of the Fourth Schedule and substitute a new table as follows:—

Age last Birthday of Proposed Annuitant	Price of Annuity of £1
Males	Females
	£	s.	d.	£	s.	d.
21 years	24	0	11	25	0	9
22 ,,	23	17	0	24	17	0
23 ,,	23	13	0	24	13	2
24 ,,	23	8	11	24	9	3
25 ,,	23	4	10	24	5	3
26 ,,	23	0	7	24	1	3
27 ,,	22	16	3	23	17	2
28 ,,	22	11	9	23	13	0
29 ,,	22	7	3	23	8	9
30 ,,	22	2	7	23	4	6
31 ,,	21	17	10	23	0	2
32 ,,	21	13	0	22	15	9
33 ,,	21	8	0	22	11	3
34 ,,	21	2	11	22	6	8
35 ,,	20	17	9	22	2	0
36 ,,	20	12	5	21	17	3
37 ,,	20	6	11	21	12	6
38 ,,	20	1	4	21	7	6
39 ,,	19	15	7	21	2	6
40 ,,	19	9	9	20	17	5
41 ,,	19	3	9	20	12	2
42 ,,	18	17	7	20	6	10
43 ,,	18	11	4	20	1	5
44 ,,	18	5	0	19	15	9
45 ,,	17	18	5	19	10	0
46 ,,	17	11	8	19	4	2
47 ,,	17	4	10	18	18	1
48 ,,	16	17	10	18	11	11
49 ,,	16	10	7	18	5	7

This is a more up-to-date table than the table in the Bill, which is taken from the superannuation statute of 1856. This table has been prepared by the British Post Office. The Post Office here does not do this class of business and, consequently, they have no tables. The improved expectation of life has necessitated an alteration in the table, and I think it is fairer that the more up-to-date table should be utilised.

Mr. Dockrell

The Minister has told us that this table has been taken from the British Post Office. I understand that their tables are based on the ruling price of Consols. What is the Minister basing this table on?

Mr. Lemass

We have actually taken the British tables. The fact that we have no security corresponding with British Consols would make it difficult to prepare a corresponding table of our own. There are possibly some slight inaccuracies in it, but they do not make much difference because the amount, in any event, is arbitrary. The amount which a workman gets is either awarded by a judge or arbitrarily fixed by the Bill. Any slight inaccuracy in the annuity tables does not matter very much.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 30 Nov 1933