Vol. 51 No. 1
I move: That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 1:—
Title. The words and figures "and to amend Section 18 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911" added at the end of the Title.
The purpose of this is to effect an amendment of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, and to bring it into conformity with this Bill.
I move: That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 2:—
Section 7, sub-section (2). The following words added at the end of the sub-section:—"and includes a person, other than a dependant of such workman within the meaning of sub-section (1) of this section, who is not under the age of 15 at the date of the death of such workman and who was resident with such workman and wholly dependent on his earnings at the said date."
When the Bill was before the Dáil, a question was raised about including amongst the dependants of workmen entitled to compensation, adopted children. At the time I indicated that an amendment was being prepared which would have the effect of including adopted children, although not saying so in precise terms. This amendment and amendment No. 3 are intended to cover the points raised. It is admitted that they cover persons other than those who could properly be described as "adopted children." They include a person other than a dependant of such workman within the meaning of sub-section (1) who is not under the age of 15, while the next amendment effects the same provision in respect of persons under 15 and covers persons who are resident with such workman, and are wholly dependent on his earnings at the date of his death. I am advised that the section carries out the intention to cover such persons. Although legally they are not members of the workman's family, nevertheless, they are recognised by the workman as persons ordinarily resident with and dependent on his earnings. The definition covers the case of "adopted children" referred to particularly by Deputy Finian Lynch. The amendment goes a little further than was contemplated in the Dáil, but, at the same time, I do not think that objection can be taken to it.
I move: That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 3:—
Section 7, sub-section (3). The following words added at the end of the sub-section:—"and includes a person, other than a dependant of such workman within the meaning of sub-section (1) of this section, who is under the age of 15 at the date of the death of such workman and who was resident with such workman and wholly dependent on his earnings at the said date."
I move: That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 4:—
Section 7. A new sub-section added at the end of the section as follows:—
"(5) For the purposes of the immediately preceding sub-section insurance shall be deemed to be one of the ordinary necessaries of life."
When the Bill was before the Dáil on Report reference was made to the fact that the English Courts had, by a sub-section of the English Act which is similar to Section 4 (7) of this Bill, in the case of the Welsh Steam Coal Company versus Evans, precluded savings or insurance out of the balance of the deceased's contributions, after providing for food, clothing and shelter and other necessaries of life. I indicated at that stage that I was prepared to offset that decision by inserting a sub-section by which insurance would be deemed to be one of the ordinary necessaries of life, so that in the event of the family having undertaken liability in respect of an insurance policy, the premiums of which were in part paid by the contributions of the injured member, that the fact could be taken into account when compensation was being awarded, so that the insurance could be continued.
I move: That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 5:—
Section 8. Two new sub-sections added at the end of the section as follows:—
"(5) Where a person is employed by the owners of a ship which is not registered in Saorstát Eireann under the Merchant Shipping Acts, the agent of such owners shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be the employer of such workman.
(6) Where a person is employed under a local or other public authority, such authority shall, notwithstanding that the appointment of such person by such authority was or the dismissal of such person by such authority is subject to the approval of a Minister of State, be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be the employer of such person."
It was complained that cases have occurred where workmen who were employed by a master of a ship to clean it, or to do other jobs, when injured, have been unable to recover compensation. As the owners may have no place in the Saorstát, and as the ship may have left port before the judgment of the court could be executed, or a claim under the Act formulated, this amendment provides that in such cases the agent shall be made liable for any compensation due to the workman. Section 66 of the Bill provides that a ship may be detained by order of the Minister but it cannot be made use of, except where a member of the crew was injured. The new amendment is intended to cover persons or members of the crew casually engaged on work while the ship is in port.
That does not meet the case where agency is the basis. It would cover the case of ships in the habit of calling at ports in the Saorstát, where the agents are men on a full time basis. Take the case of tramp vessels which call casually. It may be said that the agent would be deemed to be the employer but, whether an injured workman would ever recover damages would depend on the financial stability of the man who is the agent.
It is possible that there may be such a case not covered by the section. I do not see how it would be covered. In the majority of cases there will be a shipping agent here who will be responsible, and who under this Act will be deemed to be the employer of the casual workman.
Will the effect be to let out owners of the ship and to make the agents exclusively liable? If that is so it may possibly lead to very serious hardship on the workers. Speaking from recollection I think it has been held that if an accident occurs in this country you can serve notice by post on an employer outside the country, and if the ship came into port again it could be seized for the compensation.
Is this in substitution for the real owner?
The agent is here all the time.
He may not have as much property as the owner.
There may be such a case but I think it is unlikely. As far as the majority of ships that call at Saorstát ports go, they usually call regularly, and have established business agents with considerable assets, assets more than adequate to cover any compensation.
Let us take an analytical case. Supposing a large number of workmen were engaged on a boat, and that something happened and that there were 50 injured, as the law stood any property belonging to the shipping concern was attached or the vessel could be seized to satisfy the judgment. For the future, instead of that valuable property, which might be attached, you have merely an agent, with whatever property he may have as an individual. There are obvious circumstances in which it would be far better to have a right against the owners of a line and their property, when it comes inside the jurisdiction, than to have it against relatively, a man of straw. Would it not be better to put it: that this would not be in substitution for but would be in addition to, previous rights? I suggest that you should not do away with the old protection which was good in certain circumstances: that you might seize a vessel which came within the jurisdiction, but that in addition you would have this right, that if the boat did not come in then you had as a last resort an action against the agent. This seems to be substituting the agent to the exclusion of every other remedy. That has its obvious advantages, but it would not look to be always the better course.
I have a completely open mind on this. Representations were made that cases have arisen in which workmen were unable to get the compensation awarded to them because the ships at the time of the accident were not registered in the Saorstát. There have been cases in which it was not possible to collect the compensation awarded. Under this there will undoubtedly be somebody in the Saorstát against whom an action can be taken, and on whom liability for compensation can be placed. Having regard to that I think it is preferable to the other course suggested, seeing that the number of cases where the agent would be a man of straw—a person unable to pay the compensation awarded— would be very few indeed. There is a limited number of shipping agencies in the Saorstát, all of which, of course, are in positions to meet any claims likely to arise under this Act.
I would ask the Minister, when considering the points raised by Deputy McGilligan, to make provision that in the case of tramp steamers which have not regular agencies here the persons acting for them should be made liable under the Act. I can see cases arising of an agent being appointed to discharge one of these steamers. I can also see the point made by Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Costello that a number of shipping companies, with permanent agencies here, are themselves better security than the agents representing them. But these tramp steamers may only call here occasionally. They are of the class that may even change hands while at sea. Because of that I would ask the Minister to provide that a discretion be given to injured persons to proceed either against the owners of such vessels or the agents acting for them here.
I do not think the Deputy's suggestion meets my point at all. Take ships which ordinarily ply here but are not registered here. Under the law as it stood there was a good right and there was a flaw. The good right was that, even although they were not registered here, when you had got your judgment you could go against their property. You could hold the ship in satisfaction of it. For the future you will not have that. As I understand it, you will have, first of all, an action against the agent. The agent is deemed to be the employer apparently to the exclusion of the real employer. Take the case of the Head Line. A workman gets injured. They have not their boats registered here. A judgment is obtained against them. Their boats apparently—I say this subject to correction—cannot be seized to satisfy that judgment. All you are left with is an action against the agent. When I used the term "man of straw" I qualified it with the word "relatively." Take it that an agent will insure against the ordinary run of accidents, but let us envisage circumstances in which there are a number of accidents. Something breaks in a boat and there is a catastrophic collapse, something which causes injury to a squad of workmen. It is conceivable that the ordinary insurance rates a man had been paying would not be big enough to meet the number of judgments resulting. Under this amendment, I take it you would have lost the old valuable right of seizing a substantial piece of property which remained inside the jurisdiction to meet these judgments. The amendment has its good points in that it does give a man somebody to attack in the event of a boat casually putting in here and clearing out before there was time to satisfy a judgment. I think we might say in the amendment that the shipping agent shall be deemed to be the employer of the worker without prejudice, and without upsetting any right which previously or at the moment exists in relation to this type of case.
As a matter of fact, I think that is probably the interpretation that would be put on it. Of course, in practice we must also recognise the fact that the majority of the agencies here are themselves substantial owners of property. In fact, the shipping agencies that act for the Head Line are themselves ship owners. At any rate, they are in a position to offer very substantial assets to offset any liability that may accrue to them. It may be that there would be, here and there, shipping agencies that would not be able to do that. But taking the general run of cases, the workman, I should say, would have as good a mark in the shipping agent as in the company. However, I have no objection to the matter being left over with a view to having the point examined as to whether, in fact, this sub-section would operate to deprive a worker of his right to proceed against a ship-owner if he so desires. The amendment, I should say, is double-barrelled. Sub-section (6) is intended to provide against a doubt which arose as to whether certain employees of local authorities were included in the scope of the Bill as drafted. It was feared that it might be a contention that there did not exist a contract of service between the local authorities and these employees because of the fact that the local authority could not dismiss them without the sanction of the Department of Local Government. This sub-section is intended to make it quite clear that such employees of a local authority are included.
That raises another point. Does that mean that hereafter everybody employed by a local authority is a workman within the meaning of the Act?
No.
I should like to know what does the Minister propose to do now.
Would it not be possible to go through these other amendments and to hold this one over, as it is agreed that it should be further considered?
As far as I know, there is no precedent for doing so.
Let us create a precedent.
There is, of course, the difficulty of the apparent lack of relationship between these various amendments. I should like to know how the amendments hang in relation to each other.
They have very little relation to each other. Perhaps we could leave this amendment undecided and then adjourn the others to a later date.
Would it not be just as well to take them all on some other occasion?
But then this very point may arise again on that later date, and it will mean a second postponement.
There is no Party attitude on the matter, I think. Different opinions exist in all Parties with regard to it and I, personally, am open to conviction.
I am rather slow to create a precedent. If you can leave this amendment over, there is no reason why you cannot take the others.
I suggest that the House could do it by agreement, if there is general agreement to take the other amendments and leave this particular one over for a later date.
Of course, the House can do anything with regard to procedure. I am aware of that, but I am not anxious to create a precedent, because a similar difficulty may come up on other matters. We have the precedent for postponing amendments where the amendments have relation to each other, but there is no precedent for such a case as this, so far as I know.
Speaking purely from recollection, I think, Sir, you will find that something similar to what is now suggested has been done on more than one occasion in the last ten or 12 years.
In support of that, I should like to say that I have a distinct recollection of amendments— although, perhaps, not amendments from the Seanad—being held up in going through the Dáil while other amendments were being considered.
Perhaps they had some relation to each other, and it may have been on a different stage of the Bill.
I think, Sir, that a precedent is to be found in the last Veterinary Surgeons Act, where there was a very much debated amendment as to what was meant by professional practice. I think that, as a matter of fact, that particular amendment was held over while other amendments coming after it were discussed, and that that amendment, on Report Stage, was put back to a further Report Stage.
If the House is unanimously agreed on the matter, I do not see that I have any objection.
I think the House is agreed. While on the second part of amendment 5, which we were debating, I should like to refer to a statement the Minister made. He said emphatically that the suggestion I make is not a probable one, or does not indicate probability. I will read it again:—
"Where a person is employed under a local or other public authority, such authority shall..."
—I am leaving out the "notwithstanding" for a moment—
"... be deemed for the purposes of this Act to be the employer of such person."
Is not that rather indicative that there may not hereafter ever arise the position of independent contractor under a local authority?
The person is employed by the local authority.
Well, then, it is suggested that that person may not be employed. That may be a way out of it.
Quite.
Very good.
Amendment No. 5, by agreement, postponed.
I move that the Committee disagree with the Seanad in the following amendment:—
New section. Before Section 16 a new section inserted as follows:—
16.—(1) Where—
(a) personal injury by accident occurring outside Saorstát Eireann is caused to a workman, and
(b) such workman was at the date of such accident employed under a contract of service made in Saorstát Eireann, and
(c) the principal or only place of trade or business of the employer of such workman was at the said date in Saorstát Eireann, and
(d) such workman was at the said date normally employed in connection with the employer's trade or business in Saorstát Eireann,
such accident shall for the purposes of the immediately preceding section be deemed to have occurred in Saorstát Eireann.
(2) Where in any employment personal injury by accident arising out of and in the course of the employment is caused to a workman, and such accident occurred in a country, other than Saorstát Eireann, and such accident is, by virtue of the immediately preceding sub-section, deemed to have occurred in Saorstát Eireann, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(a) in case such workman has in such country already been awarded or entered into an agreement for the payment of compensation or damages in respect of such injury, the employer shall not be liable under this Act in respect of such injury;
(b) in case such workman has been awarded or entered into an agreement under Part VI of this Act for the payment of compensation under this Act in respect of such injury and such workman subsequently in such country is awarded or enters into an agreement for the payment of compensation or damages in respect of such injury, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—
(i) the court shall on the application of the employer set aside the award or agreement for the payment of compensation under this Act and direct any moneys lodged in court in the matter and then standing to the credit of the workman to be paid out to the employer;
(ii) if any moneys have been paid by the employer to such workman in respect of compensation under this Act or any moneys have been previously paid to such workman out of moneys lodged in court in the matter, the court shall also make an order for the payment by such workman to the employer of such moneys.
In the ordinary manner, when these amendments came from the Seanad, I intimated the intention of moving here that they be accepted by the Dáil. Since then, however, a judgment was given in the Supreme Court last week, which, in my opinion, removes the necessity for this amendment. I propose now to ask the Dáil to disagree with the Seanad on that amendment. This amendment was designed to secure that where the worker was injured in an accident outside Saorstát Eireann and, at the date of the accident, employed under a contract of service made in Saorstát Eireann by an employer whose principal or only place of trade or business was in Saorstát Eireann, and where such worker was normally employed at the date of the accident, in connection with the employer's trade or business, such worker should be entitled to get compensation in respect of that accident from the employer in the Saorstát. subject to certain provisions designed to prevent him getting double compensation in respect of the accident. The Supreme Court of the Saorstát has now placed upon the section of the 1906 Act, which is precisely similar to Section 15 of this Bill, an interpretation different from that placed on the same section by the British courts. The effect of the Supreme Court's decision is to make it clear that the workman employed under the conditions set out in the amendment, and meeting with an accident outside the Saorstát, is entitled to recover from his employer here compensation in respect of that accident. Under these circumstances, I think that the best course is to rely on that decision of the Supreme Court and to delete this section.
I contemplated, at one time, retaining the part dealing with double compensation, but I do not think it is necessary to do so, and there appears to be some case against it. It is preferable, having regard to the interpretation now placed on it by the Supreme Court, to leave the Bill as it was originally introduced without this further section. I do not know if that view is shared by Deputies opposite, but it is one that I have arrived at after some considerable consideration.
I should like to know whether or not the Minister has had the judgments of the Supreme Court carefully examined by his legal advisers with a view to considering the points we urged during the passage of the Bill. As the Minister is probably aware, I myself was in the case in the Supreme Court, and it was because of that pending case that I urged this particular amendment.
Yes, it has been examined carefully.
I, personally, have not had an opportunity of examining carefully the judgments delivered by the judges in the Supreme Court. One of the judgments would certainly not cover this particular amendment.
Quite.
I believe that the other two judgments will cover it, but I should like to be assured by the Minister that the interests of the workman, in the circumstances we discussed here during the passage of this Bill, will be safeguarded by the decision of the Supreme Court. If the Minister shows me that he has had that matter definitely looked into by his legal advisers, I should be prepared to accept his suggestion.
That is so. It has been examined, and I have been advised that the particular case covered by this amendment is also covered by the decision of the Supreme Court. There are certain other cases which the Chief Justice made it clear would not be covered by his decision and which might be the subject of action at a future date, but we decided that it should be left subject to the Supreme Court's decision—that is, where the contract was for services to be rendered entirely outside the Saorstát and other cases of that kind. It is quite clear from the terms used in the judgment that the particular case covered by (a) (b) (c) and (d) of this amendment is also covered by the decision of the Supreme Court.
I move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad in these amendments. They are consequential on an amendment inserted in the Dáil on Report Stage. The consequential amendments were overlooked at that stage and were inserted in the Seanad.
I move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 11:—
Section 32, sub-section (1). After the word "unless" in line 56 the following words inserted:—"the medical practitioner of the employer certifies that it is desirable, owing to the condition of health of the workman, that the workman should reside outside Saorstát Eireann, or".
It was argued in the Seanad that a number of workmen employed in the Saorstát and who might be injured here would have their permanent homes in Northern Ireland and that they should be permitted to return to these permanent homes, if injured. It was, accordingly, decided to insert the words set out in the amendment, which permit the worker to return to his home outside the jurisdiction if the medical practitioner of the employer certifies that it is desirable. That safeguards the interests of the employer and the insurance company who are effectively protected against the risk of the injured workman malingering.
I move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 12, which is consequential, and which is as follows:—
Section 32, sub-section (2). After the word "if" in line 1 the words "the medical practitioner of the employer or" inserted.
I move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 13:—
Section 37. The section deleted and the following new section substituted therefor:—
37. Until rules of court are made for the purposes of this Act, the rules of court for the purposes of the Acts repealed by this Act and in force at the commencement of this Act shall, with all necessary modifications, apply for the purposes of this Act.
The Courts of Justice Act provides that rules of court may be made to provide machinery for any Act passed by the Oireachtas. The method of making rules under that Act is, however, slow and cumbersome. In the hope that rules of court would be made more quickly, Section 37 of this Bill gave the necessary power to the Minister for Justice. It appears that there will be little saving of time if the making of rules is left to the Minister for Justice and it is thought better to adhere to the practice usually followed. Accordingly, Section 37 is deleted and provision is made by the new Section 37 that the rules of court at present in force shall continue in force until the new rules are made.
Will the Minister take up the question of new rules with the rule-making authority? It is very difficult to carry on a new Act under old rules and, from some observations made by judicial personages, I gather that they are not given sufficient time to formulate new rules and, sometimes, that they are not consulted at all.
The request will be duly forwarded.
These amendments are in the same category as amendments Nos. 9 and 10. I move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad in these amendments.
I move that the Dáil agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 17, which is as follows:—
Section 72. The words "paid by way of redemption thereof" deleted in lines 13-14 and the following words substituted therefor:—"payable under an order of the court redeeming a weekly payment or under a redemption agreement, a commutation agreement or an agreement by way of compromise."
This is merely a verbal change to put the matter beyond doubt.
Would the Minister give us the reference to the section where he alleges lawyers' fees are secure to them? I am not aware of the section and I would like to know.
Perhaps we should first hear Deputy Briscoe and then the Minister can reply.
The Fatal Injuries Section deals with that.
That is the case of lawyers for the employer, not those for the working man.
I move amendment 18a to amendment 18:—
In the proposed new section to delete the word "five" and substitute the word "two."
In the main the statement made by the Minister on this section and the proposed amendment agrees with the representations made to me from various places, and the particular sense in which the amendment was introduced. There is one point I would like to stress, which I think the Minister did not stress, and which reduces the matter to a very small proportion. This particular amendment deals exclusively with cases that come to court. It does not deal, at all, with cases that do not come to court in the ordinary way. As Deputies are aware, the majority of workmen's claims for compensation do not come to court. It is only in a few instances that they come into court. I think those who have any knowledge of the liability of employers for insurance will agree that in one instance employers' liability is a charge upon industry and business. It is to be increased because of this Workmen's Compensation Bill. They generally admit that the average payment by the insurance companies arising out of workmen's compensation claims is a very small amount, still the amount of £5 would have to be calculated by these insurance companies. As far as I understand this is not to be merely an increase of five per cent. The employers might find themselves with their insurance premiums very greatly increased for a few years until the insurance companies were able to say: "We now have had experience over a number of years and the sums that have to be paid to the doctors make the necessary increase so much." On the one hand, that only concerns cases that come into court. The doctors argue, "Why should you attempt to limit our fees?" Several doctors spoke to me on the subject and some of them are rather abusive about the matter. They say this is the only chance we have to get our fees. They argue the case of a major injury, because it is only those cases that come into court. It is only cases where serious injuries arise that come into court and where the person is likely to be ill for a long time. In these cases the doctor forgets that in industrial centres where major injuries arise the patient is taken off to hospital and does not come under the care of the ordinary practitioner at all. In country districts, of course, it is quite different where accidents occur a long way from hospitals, and where the doctor may have to give serious attention to a major injury arising out of an accident. On the one hand, you have to weigh up, in fairness, the amount of damage this amendment is going to do to doctors in obtaining their fees as against the imposition it is going to put on industry generally, and I do not think that one should be regarded as hostile in showing that it is not at all unfavourable to the doctor. Because, remember the cases that come into court are very few and if the doctor comes into court he will certainly get his payment. I have heard of doctors who objected to being subpoenaed to attend court because they only get a guinea for their attendance, whereas they might have attended fifty patients in the time they were attending the court. However, that does not arise. These are the points as far as I can judge.
Surely the fee for attendance at court is something entirely different from this.
I agree. I am saying that the representations made to me by persons representing the medical profession range chiefly about the loss of time that would be involved for them in going to the court, the loss to themselves in not being able to attend to other work and also the small fee they would get in return for their attendance in court. The doctors claimed that it was another imposition on them in addition to the reduction of the fee from £5 to £2. I read the speeches on the Bill in the Seanad and the Minister argued there the position of the shopkeeper and other people. He said that it could be reasonably argued that if the doctor is entitled to protection to the full, so also is the chemist entitled to protection. The very first thing that would be required in conjunction with the doctor's attendance at an accident would be bandages or splints from the chemist's shop. I do not want to delay the House on the matter and I should like to hear what the doctors have to say in regard to the proposal that the figure should be left at £5. I do not know what the position would be if the section were deleted altogether, but from the statement the Minister made I do not think he is very decided one way or the other and I presume to hope that he will accept the amendment.
I want again to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the Minister has quoted a figure of £18 per claim as the average. The average that has been put to me is less than that and, as I pointed out before, if the average is less than £18 per case, fixing the maximum fee at £5 is going to be regarded by the insurance companies as a continued liability which would justify them in demanding a very heavy increase in the premiums to be paid by the employer. As I have said also, the fixing of this fee only applies to cases that come to court and the number of cases that come to court is very small, but as against that the insurance companies are not going to agree to continue premiums at the old figure because they will say that they must cover themselves against the possibility of all cases going to court.
I rise to oppose the amendment moved by Deputy Briscoe. I do so because the medical profession refuses to be exploited for all time. Workmen's Compensation Acts up to the present have been parasitic on the charity of the medical profession. It is because we object to that position, is because we are determined to force a way out and to put an end to that condition, that we oppose the amendment moved by Deputy Briscoe. The original amendment which was inserted in the Seanad as a Government amendment did not by any means satisfy the profession but, at any rate, it was an acknowledgment of the right of the profession to be paid for work done. The Federation of Irish Industries and the chambers of commerce now come along and they ask this House to believe that a fee of £5—and that fee the maximum fee which may be awarded—is an exorbitant fee and that it should be reduced. Deputy Briscoe wants the House to reduce it to £2. I should like to ask Deputy Briscoe, some of the members of the Chamber of Commerce or some of the members of the Federation of Irish Industries, how they would like to get up at one or two o'clock in the night, attend one of the big hospitals in the city, perform a major operation, and keep the patient under their charge for seven or eight months afterwards—a period for which an injured workman may be under the care of any surgeon attached to any hospital here in Dublin—and at the end of that time receive as their only fee £5, the only fee which they may recover under this Bill. Deputy Briscoe wants the House to believe that £5 is an exorbitant fee and that £2 is enough for the surgeon in that case.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce said that this £5 may be recovered from the employer or from the insurance company but that any balance due would have to be recovered from the injured workman. I do not know if the Minister is aware of the fact that if a surgeon attached to a hospital attends a patient in the public ward of the hospital he cannot recover any fee from that patient. In that way he is in a different category to the grocer, the butcher, or anyone else who may supply the injured workman or his family with anything he may require.
Would a fee be due in these circumstances?
It might be, but he could not recover it.
Would it fit in under (c) of the amendment?
It would not be due if the man were in a public ward.
If an injured workman is taken into a public ward of a public hosital the surgeon cannot claim anything.
Then the question of a fee would not arise?
The insurance companies, Federation of Irish Industries and the chambers of commerce want us to believe that the acceptance of the amendment from the Seanad will lead to an increase in premiums to the extent of 25 per cent. The increased premiums are based altogether on the assumption that every case will go to court and that in every case the judge will award a fee of £5. That is to assume that every case will be a major accident and that every case will go to court. Cases of the minor accidents will not trouble the courts at all. It is only a very small percentage of the cases that will ever go to court and in very few cases will the maximum fee of £5 be awarded by the judge. The judges, who have a long experience of the Workmen's Compensation Acts, will be able to assess the amount of the fee due in each particular case. I venture to say that only in major cases will the fee of £5 be awarded at all. As regards the case made by the insurance companies, that it would lead to an increase of 25 per cent. in premiums, I would be rather interested to know how they arrived at these figures. When motoring insurance became compulsory in this country and when it meant an increase of business for the insurance companies, when, if anything, we should expect a reduction in premiums, the insurance companies increased premiums by 25 per cent. Perhaps they will do something similar now. There may be a slight increase in the premiums, but the fact that there will be a slight increase is no reason why the employers or insurance companies should expect free treatment from the medical profession for all time. I do not think there is very much more to say. Though we in the medical profession are not at all satisfied that the maximum fee of £5 is an adequate one, we recognise that it admits the principle that we should be paid for work done, and I ask the House with every confidence to reject Deputy Briscoe's amendment and to accept the amendment from the Seanad.
I wish to support Dr. O'Dowd in opposing Deputy Briscoe's amendment. As he says, the medical profession have for a long time suffered in silence under the injustice which they felt was their lot in connection with the work they have to do, especially in regard to workmen's compensation cases. Actually we felt that it called for criticism of ourselves that we had not moved before in the matter to see that we got justice. To me it is rather an amazing thing that on the first occasion when doctors got together to say a word for themselves you immediately had the heavy guns of the Federation of Irish Industry appearing in the field and levelled at the unfortunate medical profession. Of course, one must remember that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is a Minister for Industry and Commerce, and consequently is likely to be a little more interested by the Federation of Irish Industries than he would be by the medical profession. I would earnestly appeal to him, however, to think a little bit more deeply before running away from his own amendment, so to speak. The fact of the matter is that extra work is thrown on doctors as a result of injury arising out of an industry which is run for profit by employers. The treatment of the injured workman is of benefit to the workman, first of all because it makes him better sooner, or it is directed to make him better more quickly than if he were not treated. It is of value to the employer because it replaces at an earlier date the workman who is trained, and prevents the possibility of the employer being forced to employ a new man who is not so well trained. It makes the workman fit for his work in a shorter space of time. It is of value to the insurance company inasmuch as the treatment shortens the time during which the workman will be out of work, and consequently lessens the amount of money payable by the insurance company. The argument has been made that if this section is accepted or passed by the Dáil, malingering will result, and that that malingering will be aided by the doctor who is attending the injured workman. That is an argument, of course, which you could apply to the doctor attending any private patient. All he has to do is to give the patient some medicine to make him worse instead of better, so that he can continue his visits and increase his fees.
That may happen in any case.
As Deputy Norton says, the doctor could do that in any case. That is a silly argument. Why should professional men suddenly, as a result of the acceptance of this section, turn into criminals, because that is what it amounts to? If there are some doctors who, by prolonging the illness of or their visits to private patients—I dare say there are some; as somebody said there are black sheep in every family—in the hope of getting more fees, they are not any more likely to do it in the case of an injured workman simply because this section is passed by the Dáil. Employers have rather a wrong idea of doctors as regards workmen's compensation cases. Very often a workman's compensation case entails much more trouble for a doctor than an equally serious form of illness which is not due to an accident. You have conversations with solicitors, consultations with barristers and visits to court. Altogether they can be described as a definite nuisance. I am not referring to the actual treatment of the patient; from that point of view no doctor would ever say that a case is a nuisance, because if he has any interest in his profession he is as keen on seeing a workman brought right as he is on seeing a millionaire brought right, but there is more work actually associated with the treatment of an injured workman than there is with the treatment of an illness of similar severity not due to an accident.
The experience of doctors in the past shows that employers are not by any means free from blame in certain respects in connection with workmen who are injured. Anybody who has been resident house surgeon in an hospital will know the devious ways and means which employers adopt to get certificates for their own use by sending a workman to a doctor for treatment. You have a workman who is injured attending the hospital, and when he is going away he says: "Doctor, give me a certificate to say I was attending here to-day, how long I will be laid up and whether I am able to work or not." That certificate most likely has been requested by the employer, but he has sent the employee as an intermediary to the doctor, knowing that in the long run he will get the certificate in that indirect way and will not have to pay for it, although he is, to a large extent, getting the benefit of the certificate. That undoubtedly has happened and is happening still. Though employers may bring a charge of malingering against the doctors—that it might happen—I can definitely bring the charge against the employers that they have gone to rather mean ways of getting certificates for nothing to help them in workmen's compensation cases.
As regards the Federation of Industries, and their opposition to this long-delayed half loaf of bread, what would happen, I wonder, if the doctors formed an association, or if the doctors passed a resolution refusing to attend any workman who was injured? It would be looked upon as a horrible position and as very discreditable to the profession. Let us hope they will not be driven to any such action. If a machine—and I think this argument was used in the Seanad—is damaged in a factory a fitter is sent to repair it. Whether or not the fitter is actually employed regularly in the factory a fitter receives money to repair the machine. That costs the employer something, either directly or indirectly. Why should the employer not pay for the treatment and repair of the human machine—that is, the workman? He should be even more ready to do that, because the workman is far more important than the machine. It has already been pointed out that other professional men, solicitors, counsel and so on, are paid in those cases. One does not see why the most important man, the doctor who puts the injured man right, should not be paid as well as the solicitor who simply makes a case for him in court. Deputy Briscoe said that a very small percentage of those cases come to court, and also that some of them do not go to private doctors for treatment, but are sent to hospital. He apparently considers that once a case gets to hospital it is finished with— that all the doctors in the hospitals are such plutocrats that they do not need to be paid at all.
I should like to state the position of hospital doctors quite clearly, because I have come to the conclusion that a large number of the people in the country do not realise what it is. I know that even patients who come into hospital do not realise what is the average position of the doctors on the staff of the Dublin hospitals. Doctors—be they surgeons or physicians, or ear, throat and nose men, or gynecologists—on the staff of the voluntary hospitals in Dublin are absolutely underpaid. They get no salary whatsoever and all the work they do in attending the hospital is absolutely free, except for an odd fee they may get by agreement from a patient, who, although in a public ward and not compelled to pay a fee, offers to do so. A small income of that kind accrues to the surgeons especially in public hospitals in Dublin. They are not legally entitled to it but they do get a certain amount out of the public wards in that way.
So far as the physicians are concerned, I am sorry to say—and Deputy Dr. Rowlette will agree with me—very little accrues in that way. In any case, a surgeon or physician is not entitled —that is, so far as I know; I speak subject to correction—to claim fees for treating cases in the public wards of an hospital. That does not say that he is not morally entitled to a fee. Then, you may have the case of a patient attending the out-patients' department of a public hospital although not actually in a ward. A doctor is not entitled to claim a fee from such a patient but if this section passes, I assume that it will not preclude him from claiming a fee from the employer.
The argument that only a small percentage of cases come to court, which Deputy Briscoe stressed two or three times, is, in my opinion, one of the strongest arguments in favour of the doctor because if only a small percentage of cases comes to court—and it is only in cases that come to court that judgment is allowed to be entered for the maximum fee of £5—it is obvious that the amount of money which would be levelled against the employers in general will be very small. From our point of view, this Bill does not go far enough at all. Doctors will still be faced with the difficulty of trying to collect fees from the majority—about 80 per cent.—of workmen whose cases do not go into court. It is a well known fact that although doctors are entitled by law to collect fees from a workman, it is never done. I think I would be right in saying that it is never done. It is not necessary to go into why it should not be done. It would not make the doctor very popular—I will put it that way and leave it at that.
It was suggested that if special provision is made for the doctor, there is no reason why special provision should not be made for the butcher, the baker and the candlestick maker but there is a great difference between them. The bills of the butcher and the baker and traders generally are examples of expenditure recurring from week to week, month to month, year to year and from decade to decade, whereas, in the case of a doctor, the liability is only occasional and contingent on an accident. That makes a great difference. The food shops such as butchers' and bakers' shops do, in the average, get paid. You may be quite sure of that. They get their money eventually and they get it much more quickly than the doctor will get it even in the case of private patients. The Minister said that he had looked up the legislation in other countries to see if any similar provision was made and he stated that in some countries, similar provision was made but that the amount was small. I think that one has to take into consideration the conditions under which doctors work in other countries. Take even the case of the Six Counties. You have a panel system there similar to the panel system in England and contributions to the medical charities under the Medical Charities Act which allow an income to a doctor which is non-existent in the Free State. I think I am correct in saying that.
The main objection by the Employers' Federation is that this will send up the insurance premiums. It seems to me that this whole country is soon to be under the foot of insurance companies. If one looks at the dividends paid by insurance companies, one will see that they are not such poor bodies by any means but whenever any legislation is brought in which affects them, they say that they are going not only not to suffer from that legislation but are going to gain a great deal from it. That is probably what is feared by the employers in this connection but if the insurance companies are greedy, it is no reason why doctors should continue to suffer by reason of a long-existent grievance which is not rectified and any attempt to rectify which is opposed by the employers in this instance. The employers cannot object to the payment of a doctor on principle because they have admitted their liability to pay by the establishment of dressing stations in several industries and in some cases, actually the employment of a half-time medical man who is paid a regular salary in the year. I can quote several instances of that here in Dublin. The medical man is paid a regular salary in the year by an industry, factory or business house and in addition, there are one, two, three or four nurses and a dressing station, all at the employers' expense. If they do that—and it has been done long before this amendment came before the House—they have admitted the fact that the employer is liable for payment for medical attention to his workman so that the principle in any case is admitted. It is, of course, mainly in the case of big industries that that is done.
It has been calculated that the total amount of premiums in respect of workmen's compensation is £8 a year for a wage bill of £500 a year. That was stated in the Seanad and £8 a year is not a very large amount for a wage bill of £500. If the wage bill was £5,000, I suppose the premiums would be £80 and that would be a large amount but on the other hand what is that to big factories in which a doctor is sometimes paid a salary of £200, £250, or £300 a year and in which nurses are employed and a dressing station is maintained? I do not see any reason why the premiums should rise as high as has been suggested. If they do, it merely shows the stranglehold that insurance companies have in this country. It practically means that they have a monopoly. They have a monopoly of business in certain directions—in respect to the Traffic Act, for instance—but the increase of premiums there, as was mentioned by Deputy O'Dowd, is far more than it should be and, most people think, excessive. The companies do not seem to realise that what they will lose on the swings, they will make up on the roundabouts, so far as the Traffic Act is concerned, at any rate. I admit that they will not make up much of this but I do believe that insurance companies are inclined to act in too high-handed a fashion altogether. Anybody who has dealt with them in the matter of reports of cases will know that a great many of them, at least, always try to get a lot of information for a very small fee.
I have very little more to say on this except again to object to the charge which the Minister says that the bold, bad employer has made, that the doctors would enter into a conspiracy with workmen to compel the workmen to malinger so that they would get their maximum fee of £5 —their maximum fee, remember. The judge in charge of trying a case of this kind will know perfectly well that this objection has been brought by employers, and it is very unlikely that the maximum fee will be regarded in every case at all. The doctor has enough trouble as it is in workmen's compensation cases, and if he is going to enter into a conspiracy, driving cases into court, he is likely to gain the enormous maximum fee of £5. If he thinks it worth while to go to all that trouble for £5 I think you will find that there are very many of them whom it would not pay to do so. At any rate, I resent that charge very much and I am sure every member of the medical profession will resent it. It is hardly what I would expect from the Federation of Irish Industries. This opposition which they have shown to right and justice is very unworthy and very undignified.
There is agreement between Deputy Briscoe and the Seanad that provision should be made for the payment of expenses to medical practitioners. There is just this difference between Deputy Briscoe and the Seanad, that whereas the Seanad wanted to make the maximum fee £5, the Deputy makes it £2. Therefore, I take it that the Deputy accepts the principle that a medical practitioner who attends a workman should be paid. He thinks a medical practitioner should get £2 maximum fee, whereas the Seanad thinks the maximum ought to be £5. Deputy Briscoe is strangely vague about the reasons which induced him to take the view that £2 is the maximum which should be awarded to the medical practitioner. The Deputy did not give us any evidence to show that £2 is a reasonable fee. Neither did he subject the Seanad amendment to any kind of examination which would show that £5 was an unreasonable sum. At one time Deputy Briscoe told us that in order to recover this sum of £5 as his maximum the medical officer would have to go into court and sue there for the payment of his compensation. The Deputy mentioned that many doctors would resent having to go to court.
On a point of explanation or correction, I want to say that what I said was that the doctors, in making representations to me, put up the argument that they did not like the idea of going into court because they had to spend the whole day there and sometimes two days, and that they only got a very small fee, a fee of a guinea, which was a loss to them from the point of view of their ordinary patients. I only made that statement to inform the House of the facts the doctors told me. They did not like the idea of going to court.
That particular payment is not dealt with here.
I do not know who the doctors were who interviewed Deputy Briscoe, but judging by the representations made by the Medical Association the official view of that body is that the doctor ought to be paid for his services. Presumably, from the speeches delivered by Deputies O'Dowd and Davitt, the doctors are quite satisfied to be paid in the manner set out in the Seanad amendment. Whatever difficulty there may be in respect of a doctor going to court and getting compensation as set out in this section, Deputy Briscoe does not remove the disability in that direction by giving the doctor £2 instead of £5. If there is any hardship in having the doctor going to court to seek his compensation that hardship will be accentuated if Deputy Briscoe's amendment is carried because he will only get £2 for going to court no matter what services he has rendered to the workman. That is what will happen if the amendment is carried whereas under the Seanad amendment he will get £5, if he can satisfy the court that he is entitled to it. But if he can satisfy the court that a fair claim for his attendances on the patient would be £50, the court can only award the doctor £5. I would like to know on what grounds Deputy Briscoe thinks that £2 should be the maximum the doctor should be paid for his services. The injured workman may have been in the hands of the doctor for a long period and £2 may hardly represent the value of his work or services to that patient for one day or one week. But Deputy Briscoe wants to make sure that if the doctor has attended that patient for a year he is still only to get £2. I wonder in whom is Deputy Briscoe interested. It was clear from his speech that he was interested in the chambers of commerce and Employers' Associations. These bodies set up quite an insincere squeal over this. Remember you have employers in industry for gain not for charity at all. The group of Irish industries are in business to make profits. They say they should be paid for the goods and services they supply themselves. Deputy Briscoe comes in here and, speaking in unison with that body, says "by all means pay us for our goods and services for our respective businesses, but do not pay the doctors who attend to our injured workmen." I cannot understand that point of view at all.
I think, as Deputy Dr. Davitt says, the employers should be very glad to pay the doctor for attending to the injured workman, because the fact that the doctor can be got to attend the workman means, in the long run, a reduction in the liability of the employer. The speedy attention which the doctor gives the workman results in that workman being able to resume his work in a shorter period than if there had not been the assistance of the doctor. Anything that mitigates the sufferings of the workman and enables him to resume his work earlier is a saving to the employer. Now Deputy Briscoe wants to ensure that if the doctor is to be paid at all he is to be paid only £2 in respect of his services. That is an unfair amendment. In fact, the Seanad amendment cannot be said to err on the side of generosity. Deputy Briscoe said it was only on coming into court that this fee should be paid. That is true, but it furnishes an answer to the arguments of the insurance companies that it would be necessary to increase the premiums paid to the insurance companies if the compensation suggested for the doctor is going to be paid. But that will only be paid in certain cases coming into court. Is it not perfectly clear that an increase in the premiums is not rendered necessary by this amendment? Deputy Briscoe says that very few cases relatively will come before the court and, consequently, very little compensation will be paid to the medical practitioners through the court. If that is so, the insertion of this amendment does not furnish the insurance companies with an excuse for raising the premiums to any great extent. Even if it were necessary that the premiums should go up, that would be no argument against the payment. Deputy Briscoe surely does not suggest that the premiums should be kept down to their present level so as to insure that the doctors should be kept down? He does not make that suggestion. Nobody suggests that the premiums should be kept artificially low because of the fact that they consider the doctor should be deprived of his compensation, or that he should be deprived of his compensation, lest the premiums should go up. I think an employer ought to be glad to pay for medical attendance on an injured workman, because it is in his own interest. It gives him back an efficient workman in a speedy manner and, perhaps, prevents his being liable for a greater sum in compensation than he would otherwise be.
Deputy Briscoe asked: "Why not include the chemist in the scope of this amendment?" There might be a very good case for including the chemist and an amendment by Deputy Briscoe to include the chemist would be very much more understandable than an amendment to reduce the fee of the doctor. If, in a case of accident, a chemist on the spur of the moment has to hand out some medical requisites, why should he not be paid? It is a special kind of contract associated with misfortune and the chemist has as good a right to be paid in the matter as the doctor. I would support Deputy Briscoe if his amendment were to include the chemist instead of reducing the doctor's fee and making no provision for the chemist. I think the Seanad amendment is a reasonable one. It will not compensate doctors for all the skilled attention they give injured workmen, because they will be only able to recover their fee in this manner in a limited number of cases. The amendment, however, does give some State recognition to the fact that the doctor is entitled to be paid. Human nature being what it is, even doctors ought to be glad that the State has now seen fit to give that kind of recognition. I think there is a very good case for the Seanad amendment and no case at all for Deputy Briscoe's attempt to whittle down the amendment by prescribing a maximum of £2 for the doctor. The Deputy would be well-advised to withdraw his amendment and vote for the Seanad amendment.
I am waiting for the Minister's reply to the question I put to him telling us where the guarantee is in the Bill for lawyer's fees.
Section 43.
Whether it is in the Bill or whether it is not, I want to oppose Deputy Briscoe's amendment and support the Seanad amendment. It is not as one member of what, I am sure, Deputy Norton regards as a rapacious profession supporting a member of another rapacious profession that I am opposing this amendment. I oppose it entirely from the point of view of the workman and from a point of view that I think has not been put so far in this debate. Deputy Doctor Davitt and Deputy Doctor O'Dowd put their case really on the principle that the labourer is worthy of his hire. I should like to put it on the basis that the workman is entitled to the best medical attention he can get and that the person who gives him that is at least entitled to fair remuneration, if not full remuneration, for the work he has done.
Anybody who has had experience of conducting workmen's compensation cases in court knows that you have this particular position occurring in all these cases fought out in court— that usually there appears for the workman a doctor—I am not casting aspersions on the people who give their services to workmen when I say this—who is not as eminent in his profession as the doctor who appears on behalf of the insurance company. The insurance companies have at their service the most eminent surgeons and physicians in Dublin who appear for them in court opposing the workmen's claims and give expert evidence of an eminent nature which will impress the court, or which they think will be likely to impress the court by reason of the eminence of the physician or surgeon who gives it. The eminent physician or surgeon is available for the insurance companies at a comparatively moderate fee, because he has a standing retainer, and the result is that the insurance companies are able to bring down the heaviest weights in the medical or surgical profession in Dublin against the comparatively obscure physicians or surgeons who appear for the workman. I do not say that it does affect the minds of the court, but you have this position —that most medical men would do anything to avoid attending people where the result of their attention on these people will eventually land them into giving evidence. It is the experience of everybody that no medical man or surgeon is any way desirous of giving evidence in court even at a fairly remunerative fee. When it is a matter of giving evidence in a workman's compensation case, every medical man, no matter how hard up he is, will do his best to avoid appearing in court, because it means hanging around the court for at least an entire day at a fee that does not pay him, apart from the inconvenience he is put to in attending court.
The real reason why I say that this amendment of Deputy Briscoe's is a mean amendment is that it is cutting down the remuneration of the comparatively obscure physician or surgeon who comes into court and rendering it less likely that anybody will be willing to give his services in court on behalf of the workman in a situation where the people on the opposite side have at their disposal the most expert, eminent medical and surgical opinion to be produced in court to outweigh any evidence given on behalf of the workman. I think there is nothing to be said for Deputy Briscoe's amendment. I think the Seanad amendment providing merely for a fee of £5 is a very reasonable one. I think a fee of £5 is very small for the doctor. The fee of £2 proposed by Deputy Briscoe is ridiculous, in my opinion.
As a matter of fact, even if the section put in by the Seanad remains in the Bill I do not think any doctor, or very few of them at any rate, will get anything at all. First of all, it is in the discretion of the judge how much they will get. Secondly, it would appear, on the face of the section itself, that the doctors will have to employ a solicitor to apply for the £5 for them. They will, at all events, have to attend in court in cases where they might not have to attend in order to get the remuneration. They are supposed to make application there and then when, perhaps, they would have no notice whatever that the case was coming on. I do not think that the insurance companies have any justification for increasing the premium. They may use this as an excuse for increasing the premium but they will have no justification for it. In point of fact, I think it will probably assist the insurance companies in dealing more quickly and in a better way with cases that might ordinarily come into court.
Deputy Costello described my amendment as a particularly mean one. I wonder could there be anything more mean than the reference to the staff doctor of a hospital making an arrangement for a fee with a workman who has come in as a result of an accident. Anybody associated with an hospital in Dublin knows that such a doctor has no right to exact a fee from persons coming into a hospital.
Of course not.
Deputy Norton seems to have overlooked the whole position. Deputy Norton, who was out to protect the worker might have suggested that we should have compulsory insurance on the part of every employer.
It is the Minister who needs that advice not I.
Deputy Norton referred to the fact that industrialists were primarily concerned in this matter. The Deputy seems to forget that everyone, whether in industry or in a private capacity, if he is wise and has any interests in the persons he employs has an employer's liability policy. I am not anxious to press the amendment. I would prefer to see all the Seanad amendments out of the Bill and things left as they were. The doctors are making the case that they should get a fee of £5 out of the very few cases that go to court. In 95 per cent. of the cases, and probably in all cases of accidents to workmen the doctors attend the patients in the ordinary way. Probably in 90 per cent. of the cases they do not get paid at all. They do the work voluntarily and I say every credit to them. If they were to argue that they were to be covered in every case in which a workman is injured, I could understand the position. I cannot understand it if they press for a minimum fee or for a maximum fee to be fixed in the few cases that go to court.
From inquiries I made I am satisfied that insurance companies are going to penalise very heavily people who take out employers' liability policies. The argument is that what they will exact in the first few years will be out of all proportion to the number of cases met by this proposal. I do not know how £18 was given as the average amount paid by insurance companies in these cases. I was given to understand that the amount was somewhere in the region of £5. On making a calculation I feel that the companies would argue that they were entitled to at least 25 per cent. of an increase. I do not know what the exact increase in premiums will be. The premiums for motor-car insurance have already been increased. We will have to wait to see what the experience of the companies will be, and what will be the average payment, to know whether they will increase or decrease premiums. As far as I can see any increase made will remain, because competition is no longer what it was, insurance now being more or less compulsory for everything. If the premiums go up they will not go up against the Federation of Industries in which I am not interested, but against every employer, including doctors, and for every domestic servant. It will apply all round. As this only applies to a small number of cases, I say that the doctor is not going to lose much in the turnover, because in 95 per cent. of the cases the workman pays, so there is no grievance on the part of the doctor that he has not been paid. I am concerned mainly about the extra imposition on persons who took out policies, because it is going to be out of all proportion to the £5. I hoped by making the amount £2 I was going to reduce the increase that will accrue.
I want to start by saying that in the contest that has risen, apparently between sympathy with the medical practitioner—whether it is right or not—who does not in fact sue for fees, and appreciation of the insurance companies' point of view, that I am all for the amendment. But I say that with reservations. The whole point of Deputy Briscoe's amendment is to reduce the £5 maximum to £2 maximum, irrespective of what type of case, what kind of accident, or what amount of care and consideration a medical man gave to a case. That is quite fair!! I want to point out one or two things that were not stressed. The first was made in detail in the Seanad, that the £5 maximum applies in relation to each and every doctor on the job at a particular accident. If there happened to be an amazing accident, in which five medical practitioners were concerned, they might get £25 in all, or a maximum of £5 each. It is admitted that that would be the position. The second point was made clear, and was stressed by Deputy Norton in answer to Deputy Briscoe, the question of the medical man's fees for attendance in court. That does not come into it. That is not dealt with. That is not the £5 referred to, and it will have no relation to the matter. Whether he gets fees for attending in court will be determined as it is determined now.
I did not say anything about that.
Then I misunderstood the Deputy. As to Deputy O'Dowd's point, a man who has gone into the public ward of an hospital, where no charge is permissible, as far as I can read this, fees will not be due and consequently will not be covered by the £5. The point raised as to statistics, the number of cases that go to court, and the number settled, whatever else happens if this amendment goes through, will have no relation to the facts afterwards. I am in some doubt as to the meaning of the Deputy's amendment, but I am going to put forward this construction to see if it is right or not. I find that the only way a doctor could get the £5 maximum is by a court order, and that court order can only be made on the application of the medical practitioner on the making of the court order. So, in order to get £5, the medical man must force the case into court. I take up paragraph (d) of the amendment (paragraph read). If Deputies turn to Part 6 of the Bill they will see that that is quite good and that arrangements are made for registering by the court registrar without the order of the court, where, say, weekly payments are contested and about which no statutory objections are taken. It seems to me, unless in cases of compulsory awards, sums up to £5 can never come in and the only way the medical man can get the fee is by attending and getting an order of the court made on his application when the payment of the £5 will follow. Deputy Costello pointed out that that entails for the future an appearance on behalf of the medical man to make the application to have a sum of money fixed as payment for fees due. I think this view should be considered.
I am in favour of trying to get payment for medical men, but whether that payment should be the subject of the maximum of the flat rate is another matter. I am certainly against this proposal which seems to suggest that in order to get payment cases must be forced into court, even if it is for the purpose of having registration effected subject to some ad hoc objection to registration. That would mean, and I think it was commented on in the Seanad, that while 80 per cent. of the cases are settled without court intervention, they will not now be in future. I want to view that from another angle. If all cases have to be brought to court, even to get fees for doctors, some solicitor or barrister will have to be briefed. The cases would go to court in any event, but instead of having them registered in an easy way, if they are made the subject of litigation, which involves some expense, there is no doubt premiums are going to go up.
On that then there was a difference of opinion. I read that in the Seanad debates the Minister said:
"The average payment in respect of workmen's compensation for six industrial groups, excluding agriculture, in 1930 was £22 10s. The average payment in respect of agricultural workers injured was only £13 11s."
I notice that the Minister used the phrase "average payment." I take it that included contested and non-contested cases. A Senator who followed on that said that he had been informed—I do not think his statement was queried very much in the Seanad —that the provisions in the Bill for a £5 maximum were likely to add 15 per cent. to the cost of insurance in this country, and would likely raise premiums by that amount. The Senator who made that assertion also asserted that the £5 maximum would necessitate, as he put it, the bringing of cases into court and would add a further 20 or 25 per cent. I do not know whether that 20 or 25 per cent., used in conmotation with the word "further," meant that it was to be added to the 15 per cent.
The Senator meant that.
Then it means that, according to his contention, insurance is going to be raised by 35 or 40 per cent. That, taken into consideration with the particular points I have been stressing, means that possibly all cases hereafter will be brought into court. While I am not against the medical man getting his reward I think some better system than that proposed ought to be arranged. Instead could there not be some arrangement like this: that the doctor might indent the court register for his payment and in some way get rough and ready satisfaction without having to go to court? I do not see why we should go to all the extravagance in regard to what is accepted both here and in the Seanad: that the medical man would be secured the payment of his fee. I would urge that this matter should be further considered. There is definite agreement that the medical man should get payment and that it should not come from the compensation awarded the workman. These are the two points of principle that were decided.
Deputy Briscoe raises the matter of an overriding maximum rate; that it should be reduced from £5 to £2. It seems to me that a better line of country to follow would be this: there are minor accidents which happen, arising out of employment. Generally the people who suffer from these are taken right away to the public wards in public hospitals. There they get treatment. Possibly if another division of the work were made medical practitioners would not object even to having their wards to a certain degree more crowded than they used to be by reason of these people being admitted. Supposing that this payment to the doctor were to be measured by some association with the sum afterwards awarded which, of course, will have a bearing on the type of accident—the accident will have its result in either temporary or permanent incapacity and will have its result finally in the amount which the court will award—I have the feeling, remembering all the time that I speak subject to the correction of more experienced Deputies on the medical side, that it would be a far better thing to have it that the payment granted to the medical man should bear a relation to the amount of money awarded. That would be getting back to the type of accident itself, and, therefore, to the care and trouble that the medical man was put to in his attendance on the case.
I think the amendment, as it has come before the House, is not in the best form. It was a compromise amendment in the Seanad. The matter was first raised on the Committee Stage. There were three disagreeing amendments, and these were reconciled to a certain extent by this amendment which was produced by the Minister, but not, I think, with any great enthusiasm on his part. It might be well if this could be left over to see if there could not be a better wording found to carry out at any rate the two principles which have, in the main, been agreed upon: payment to the medical man being made compulsory, and that the payment should not come out of the award made to the injured man. I support both principles.
I suggest that the House should consider the withdrawal of the amendment received from the Seanad and allow the whole matter to be considered as suggested by Deputy McGilligan, and, if possible, have new legislation introduced, irrespective of this Bill altogether. If that could be done I would be better pleased.
Surely we can amend this amendment.
Is Deputy Briscoe withdrawing his amendment?
No, I am asking for a compromise.
The suggestion has been made that the consideration of this amendment from the Seanad might be adjourned, so as to give Deputies an opportunity of considering possible improvements on it that have been suggested here in the form of alternatives. I am quite open to adopt that course. This Bill has not been rushed at any time, and I have no desire to rush it now. If there are any Deputies who think that they can produce an amendment more acceptable than the one on the Order Paper I am quite prepared to give them adequate time and opportunity for doing so. It is quite clear that this amendment from the Seanad does not, on the one hand, accomplish all that the doctor-Deputies want to have accomplished. Deputy McGilligan made it clear that this amendment, as it stands, does not provide for the elimination of all the injustices that certain doctor-Deputies have waxed eloquent about. On the other hand, the contention that it is going to increase insurance premiums by 25 per cent. is preposterous. It could not possibly do that unless the insurance companies are going to make insurance doubly sure by the most flagrant profiteering on the strength of the insertion of this amendment. If, in fact, the increases which have been mentioned in the various resolutions adopted by chambers of commerce and other bodies took place in the cost of workmen's compensation insurance in consequence of the passage of this measure, there would be a very serious situation which would have to be dealt with, because I do not think there is anything in the Bill, even if the amendment were inserted, which would justify such increases.
The position is that, first of all, doctors do not get paid for attendance given to workers in the public wards of public hospitals and they are not going to get paid in consequence of the passing of this amendment. If there is any suggestion that the law in that respect should be changed then that has got to be done in some Bill other than this. This Bill merely seeks to provide for the payment to a doctor of the fees due to him. Although certain doctor-Deputies talked about doctors being called out of their beds in the middle of the night to undertake major operations which involve continuous attention on their part over a number of months, the average case is not that kind at all, but rather a sprained thumb, a cut wrist, or some other minor accident which keeps a workman out of employment for two or three weeks. It is quite clear that the average case must be something of that nature, having regard to the average compensation paid, and no matter how a doctor may try he will find it very hard to justify a claim for £5 in consequence of the attention given to workers injured in that way.
It has been argued, and argued with some force, that the insertion of any such section is going to bring more cases to court and is going to result in a fewer number of voluntary agreements. I cannot see any alternative. It was generally agreed by the representatives of the various medical associations which I met, and by those who spoke in the Seanad in support of some such amendment as this, that it would be hard to make any provision for any cases except those that come before the court, either where the amount was fixed by the court or where an agreement was registered by order of the court, and an agreement is only registered by order of the court in a case where there is some objection to the agreement. Otherwise, it is registered by the court registrar. Where it is registered by the court registrar without reference to the court, or where there is no agreement, and where the statutory compensation is paid without question, then the doctor's position is in no way changed except in so far as his moral position, so to speak, in claiming his fee may be slightly improved by knowledge of the fact that this section has been inserted in the Bill.
Personally, I cannot see what improvement in the section can be made. However, if Deputies feel that they would like to try their hand at making an improvement, I am quite willing to give them time to do so. I do not think we could take the risk of adopting provisions which, because they are likely to be acceptable to the workers and to the doctors, might necessitate a serious increase in the cost of insurance. We have got to bear in mind that the cost of insurance is a matter of great importance. It is of importance, not merely to the employer who has got to pay it, but also, I think, to those who speak in the interests of labour, because any substantial increase in the cost of insurance is going to mean lesser insurance in cases of this kind and is going to mean, in consequence, that a larger number of workers will find themselves in the position of being unable to get compensation when they are injured because of the employers' inability to pay. There is also the fact that the burden imposed on trade and industry by any substantial increase in premiums would be bound to have its effect indirectly on employment. On that account, I think we should be very slow to adopt any measure which would necessitate an increase in premiums, even though we would have to go very far to necessitate an increase in premiums of the dimensions suggested by certain organisations and insurance company representatives. As I said before, I am putting this amendment to the Dáil without any enthusiasm. I think that a strong case can be made for leaving the Bill as it stands and letting the position remain in this country as it is in Great Britain and in a very large number of countries where workmen's compensation laws are in operation.
There is a case for keeping the maximum fee, to be provided under this section, down considerably. Deputies have spoken as if the proposal here is to pay the doctor a maximum of £2 or £5 in all cases. That is not so at all. What is proposed here is that, to that amount, he is to be secured his fee at the expense of the employer; but he still has every legal remedy that is already open to him to secure the balance of the fee, if any, from the worker. It may be that doctors find their fees inadequate in cases of this kind. That, however, is something that cannot be rectified in respect of this particular Bill, because it must apply in other matters as well, and is, no doubt, the subject of grave consideration by the members of the profession. I am prepared to leave the matter over to another date with a view to seeing what amendments will be produced, but if Deputies do not think that they can produce acceptable amendments, then these can go to a free vote of the House, in which each Deputy will be free to vote in accordance with his own views, irrespective of his Party affiliations.
There are one or two facts that I should like to impress on the House in considering this matter. Workmen's compensation insurance is a very important charge on industry, and a charge that, for many years, has been increasing annually, so that it has now become what is to many a considerable burden. Accordingly, I think we should be slow, if we are anxious to encourage industry, to add further burdens to it. Every person who is in industry must insure. There was no reason at all for the insurance companies to have informed us of what their charges would be. In fact, I think, after hearing the debate, they ought to be inclined to feel that it would have been better for them to have held their tongues until the Act was passed and then to increase the charges to meet the liabilities. They have warned us beforehand what the charges will be if this Act is passed, and I think that for that information we should thank them instead of abusing them.
There is another point in this that deserves consideration. To get these fees—this fee of £5 that is set out— every case will have to be settled in court. Where 80 per cent. of the cases are settled outside the court at present, every case will be settled in court. Without any disrespect to the doctors, they will ensure two to three visits to that case before it comes to the court in order to qualify for the £5, so that each doctor, when the case appears in court will be entitled to the £5.
In most cases, or in many cases, at any rate—I do not want to be unfair to the doctors—there will be more than one doctor. Let us take it that on an average there will be two doctors. That will mean £10. Now, take the information which the insurance companies have given us as to the average costs being in the region of £20. The relation of £10 to £20 is 50 per cent., so that, by our own action, we are going to increase the charges 50 per cent. That is what I want the House to bear in mind. We are in sympathy with the doctors and their charges. We want every man to get a fair recompense, but where you are going to increase the costs by 50 per cent., I think the House should hesitate, and I want the House to hesitate and consider the matter. Industry in this country is in no state to bear an additional charge of 50 per cent., and I would urge, both in the interests of the doctors and in the interests of industry, that this matter should be further considered. It certainly should not remain in its present form.
The Deputy has spoken of the burdens that industry will have to bear if this very modest amendment of the Seanad be adopted. Why does industry escape this burden at present? For the simple reason, which can be stated in three or four words, that it is parasitic on the free service of the medical profession. That is how it has escaped this burden and that is the burden that industry wishes to escape in the future. Exactly the same complaints made to-day by the Federation of Irish Industries, the chambers of commerce, and some Deputies in this House, were made years ago, when the principle of compensation for workmen's accidents came into force at first. It was urged that industry could not bear the burden, that the cost would be too great and that it would break industry. This minute addition, if any, to the cost of insurance now occupies the consideration of this House and the further demand is made that industry should continue to be a parasite on the free service of the medical profession. The Minister is quite aware—I think that he admitted as much in the Seanad—that, for most of the service given by the medical profession in relation to workmen's compensation, it is quite impossible to collect any money whatever. That applies not only to those who give their service in hospitals, where the difficulties in this respect are greater, but also to those who give their service privately.
The comparison has been made—it is a false comparison—with the position of the shopkeeper, the butcher and the baker. If the doctor is to be protected, why not, it is asked, the butcher and the baker? The bills of the butcher and the baker are not due to the accident. The doctor's bill is due solely to the accident. It is part of the loss the workman suffers on account of the accident. He does not eat more bread or beef on account of the accident. In all probability he eats less. But the doctor's bill is an incident directly arising out of the accident and has a special relation to any compensation or legal responsibility there may be for the accident. The medical attendant is in intimate relationship with any dealings between the workman and his employer, whether these dealings be in court or out of court. He is a necessary part of the proceedings. Without his help no assessment can be come to as to the injury the workman has suffered. But far more important than that is the fact that it is his work that tends to reduce the compensation and tends to reduce the responsibility placed on the employer or the insurance company. That fact has been almost altogether overlooked in the debate to-day—that the doctor's services, instead of increasing the amount to be paid, tend to decrease the amount by promoting the complete recovery of the man, or by restoring him to a fair degree of health in a moderate space of time.
That is not the experience of those engaged in industry.
It is not the experience of those engaged in industry that medical attendance is of any use to an injured workman! That is the Deputy's statement—that the help of one of our leading surgeons—we, physicians and general practitioners, may be left out, because we have little to do with these cases—does not tend to restore a workman to health. I hope that that statement will receive publicity. That sums up the attitude of the Federation of Employers, Deputy Briscoe and the chambers of commerce to the amendment passed by the Seanad—that the attendance of the medical profession does not tend to restore a workman to health and render him fit for work. I hope the House will bear that in mind——
I hope the Deputy is not suggesting that I said that.
No. Deputy Briscoe is much too adroit to say that.
The Deputy is suggesting that the workman never pays the doctor.
Very rarely.
He always pays. The doctor wants it from both sides sometimes.
Deputy Briscoe, judging by his speech and his interruption, is clearly in touch with an entirely different class of the profession from those concerned with this measure or with whom I have had any conversation concerning the measure or who have had conversation with the Minister concerning the measure. He is in touch with a very much happier group of the profession than those I am acquainted with, because he is in touch with doctors who are regularly paid by workmen patients in compensation cases. I do not want to weary the House by relating personal experiences. I remember only one workman's compensation case. It was the case of a girl who did not choose to be treated in hospital, who preferred to come to my own house. I attended her over several weeks and she paid me many visits. She was awarded a very generous sum by way of compensation. It was three times the amount I would have awarded her if I had been assessing the compensation. The only return I got in that case was a fee of a guinea for attending the court. I got no payment for treatment. That is the common experience of people who attend this class of case. I am very glad that these cases do not come very much into the work of the general practitioner.
There has been a good deal of mathematical computation, which must have puzzled many Deputies. Deputy Briscoe gave us a very interesting computation of the probable amount of increased expense which this amendment would involve. He told us that the average amount of compensation was £18. He told us later that he did not know what the authority for that was. Deputy McGilligan read the statement of the Minister as to what the average was in these cases. Supposing it was £18, Deputy Briscoe adds to that average compensation a maximum medical fee of £5. He adds two different quantities—an average and a maximum—and he estimates that that will give an increased cost of 25 per cent. I cannot follow that. Deputy Good goes further and decides that there are going to be two doctors in every case and that each of them is going to get £5. He assumes that in every case the court is going to award the maximum fee. I see no reason for assuming that the judge is going to be such a stupid person in every compensation case. Our experience of the judges is that they are extremely astute in dealing with these cases. The assumption that a rather dishonest doctor—who, judging by his own description, is the doctor in Deputy Good's mind—will pay unnecessary visits in order to be in a position to command the maximum fee and will succeed in hoodwinking the court into granting him the maximum fee for unnecessary visits in connection with, as the Minister said, a cut finger or a sprained thumb, is not easily accepted. The whole assumption of a doctor getting the maximum fee of £5 and two doctors in every case is based on a hypothesis. There is no basis of fact for it. These simple cases do not demand the services of two doctors and do not have the services of two doctors. The assumption that the cost will be increased by 50 per cent. seems to me to have no basis in fact or in mathematics. I have been very puzzled by Deputy Briscoe's argument. He said that, at present, the great majority of cases do not go to court. That is true. He said further that doctors do not like going to court. Nevertheless, his whole anxiety is that, though the majority of cases do not go to court and though doctors do not like going to court, the maximum fee will be awarded.
Everything given in regard to this increased cost is hypothetical. Not one solid argument was advanced in support of it, either by Deputy Briscoe or anyone else. The medical profession, as far as I know, put forward in the Seanad the suggestion that the court should award such fee as they thought properly earned by the medical man in the case. That was not accepted. The Minister has proposed the very modest maximum of £5. Even in regard to this maximum there is considerable misrepresentation. He is quoted as saying that that would be awarded in every case whereas the Minister was very clear upon the matter. He stated in the Seanad: "The court in a great many cases will hold that a smaller fee will compensate the doctor for his services." In spite of that these misstatements of his opinion have appeared repeatedly, in the newspapers, and, to-day, in the debate it is assumed that the maximum would be awarded. What Deputies really mean by that is an attack upon the competence of the judges. They will use their discretion as to the amounts they award and as to the fee allowed in regard to compensation. The case as made is merely an effort to meet what I think would be fair and what most people think would be fair, namely, that the medical men should be left in the hands of the judges who would say what fees should be secured.
Deputy Briscoe proposes to reduce that modest maximum to a still lesser sum. I need not remind the House of the arguments of the leader of the Labour Party. The point is made that a better principle to adjust the amount of the medical fees could be devised. Of course it could. We are not satisfied, but half a loaf is better than no bread; even a crust is better than no bread. I would point out that a percentage of the compensation up to the maximum might not be suitable unless the judge used his discretion. It is not the cases in which most damages are given that medical attendance has to be secured. The largest amount of compensation may be given in a case where the workman suffered death. In such cases there might be no medical fees at all. I do not think a percentage would give an effective standard although it might be better than the proposal before the House. As far as I know, the men of the medical profession, and those who speak for them, would prefer that the Seanad amendment should be accepted than that the matter should be kept any longer in doubt. That is the position. Deputy Briscoe wants to give the medical men £2; perhaps he wants to give them nothing at all, but being a moderate man he would split the difference.
With the permission of the Committee, in view of the misconstruction put upon my amendment, I ask leave to withdraw it.
With regard to this amendment No. 18, if there was no objection, and no strong feeling on the matter, I think it would be better if it was no longer left in doubt and was decided now.
May I put this one point? The only way in which the matter may be made compulsory in relation to medical service if the case comes into court would be to have it registered by the County Registrar.
What precisely would the County Registrar do unless you gave him power?
He would register the agreed amount.
To require the employer to pay up?
Suppose paragraph (d) were amended by the insertion after the word "agreement" of the phrase or by the County Registrar under Part VI of this Act. That would allow attached to the payment of the medical man an agreement registered by the County Registrar. The phrase would then run "the court may, if it so thinks fit, upon the application of such medical practitioner made immediately upon the making of such order, direct the employer to pay in addition to the compensation to such medical practitioner in respect of such fees, such sum not exceeding £5, as the court may fix;" then put in there the phrase "or the County Registrar decides." A sum not exceeding £5 or if agreed upon a sum that shall be included in the agreement of the Registrar for the payment of such agreed sum and then the rest follows. And the payment on foot of such direction shall be taken to be the payment for the work of medical practitioner. That would avoid a lot of cases being brought into court that otherwise would be so brought.
What is the necessity for that provision if the sum is an agreed sum? If it is an agreed sum, then, presumably, the payment will take place without any provision.
It could be made compulsory and deemed to be a payment by the workman to his medical practitioner. The Minister's readjustment of his own amendment had to include the last three lines:—
"and if such direction is given ...the payment shall be deemed to be a payment by such workman to such medical practitioner."
You want the same thing with regard to the agreed payment. That point had to be covered. There is the other point. If there is an agreement in regard to paying the medical practitioner, what is the sum that will be paid? In one case there will be reluctance on the part of insurance companies to pay medical fees. Suppose you have a case of a bad accident and obviously permanent and full incapacity, the only way in which the medical person may be secured his fee is by going into court. Under the threat of being brought into court merely to get a legal award you can get an enforcible arrangement about payment of the medical men.
I think where there is an agreed settlement which does not come into court, and particularly an agreed settlement in which an insurance company is involved, there will be payment to the doctor. In the case where a workman fails to pay, as is much more frequently the case, where he gets a decision of court he simply puts the money into his own pocket and walks away.
But if a man comes before the court the matter would be settled by the court under this clause. To ensure that the medical man gets his fees he will be encouraged to bring the case into court.
I do not quite see how that could happen. The doctor cannot take any action that would ensure the case coming into court except the action that would be open of persuading the workman not to agree to the proposals submitted to him, but to fight it out.
Is not that the obvious way to do it?
I do not know that that will happen very frequently, having regard to the fact that the workman will be advised by his trade union.
Is it not just as likely for the solicitor to try to drive the case into court as it is for the doctor? Why is it presumed that the doctor will always try to persuade him? The solicitor is there to protect his client.
There is a section to deal with the lawyer.
And I intend to talk about that section too.
I said it was a section to protect the client from the lawyer.
I am against the amendment chiefly for the reason that it seems to me to make the workman the catspaw of the doctor. There is no doubt about it, this Bill is framed for the benefit of the workman, but this amendment is entirely for the benefit of the doctor. In other words, the workman, because he can do better without going into court, possibly has no intention of going into court, but the doctor comes along and, because he knows that when the workman's compensation is paid he will have to take his chance of being paid, says that he must get a fee of £5. The employer may be willing to give a lump sum of, say, £100 in settlement, or rather the insurance company may be willing to pay that amount but they will stop short at that £100 and they are not going to pay £105. It is a small thing like that which will upset a settlement. That is what I mean when I say the workman would be made the catspaw of the doctor. This is not a doctors' compensation Bill. Some Deputies might have gathered from the speeches made on the amendment that it is a doctors' compensation Bill, but we have to treat the position as far as the doctor is concerned exactly as if no workmen's compensation code existed. The doctor will have to take his chance as to whether he will get paid or not for his attendance on the workman.
With regard to the point that an order is necessary if the doctor is to get his fee at all, there seems to be nothing in that point. The aspect from which it has been viewed seems to me to be that because a person is given a legal right under the Act, in order to secure that legal right he must go to court, get a definition of that right and an order made to that effect. There are thousands of us who have legal rights which, in fact, we enjoy without going to the courts to seek an order setting out that we enjoy them. Under this amendment it is sought to provide that the doctor will get an order to ensure that he will get his fee. If there is a right to be got in court the parties will take that into account and they will make any settlement that is made on that basis. It should also be remembered that the solicitor for the workman will also be the solicitor for the doctor. When the workman's case is being considered by the solicitor, the solicitor will have to take into account the claims of his quasi-client, the doctor, and he can foresee that if the workman, who could get a favourable settlement outside the court, is dragged into court the whole question of liability under the Workman's Compensation Act will be opened up. Questions will be raised by the defence in regard to bringing the claim in time, the service of notice and many other matters and you may have the result that the workman will get practically nothing at all in the end. I shall conclude these few remarks with the observation with which I opened, that the object of this amendment is to make the workman the catspaw of the doctor, and for that reason I most certainly shall vote against it.
I suppose I have the right of replying to the wildly extravagant statement of Deputy McGuire that this Bill—not even the amendment —but the Bill is to make the workman the catspaw of the doctor. I think that is a ridiculous statement, even if it is confined to the amendment.
I said the amendment.
Although this Bill deals with workmen's compensation, at the same time there is no reason when you are providing compensation for workmen, why you should not see that the rights of people who are affected contingently in the event of an accident occurring, should not be properly protected, too. Deputy McGuire talked about a solicitor and the doctor, his quasi-client. That is the position even at the present moment before this Bill goes through at all, because in a case at present where a doctor has to attend a patient who is injured, the solicitor who is acting on behalf of the patient I imagine very often does make an effort to get a fee for the doctor if he thinks it is possible for the workman to pay. At the same time, I do not think the doctor is always on his doorstep or is always ringing him up asking him "Have you got that ten bob yet?" There are some cases where a solicitor does try to get a fee for the doctor. He succeeds in a very small minority of cases, but I think he succeeds in the majority of cases in getting a fee for himself. Why should he be entitled to a fee any more than the doctor? If counsel is briefed in the case you may be sure that he gets his fee in advance before he does the case at all.
Those days are gone.
I move: That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 19:—
New section. After Section 73, and in Part IX, a new section inserted as follows:—
74.—Paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 18 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, is hereby amended by the substitution of the words "and disabled, for more than three days, any person employed in or about the mine earning full wages at the work at which he was employed" for the words "and disabled, for more than seven days, any person employed in or about the mine from working at his ordinary work" now contained therein, and the said section shall be construed and have effect accordingly.
This amendment has been covered by the discussion on amendment No. 1.
I move: That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 20:—
Second Schedule. Rule 3. The words "in order of seniority of birth" deleted in line 32, page 36.
This is merely a drafting amendment.
I move: That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 21:—
Third Schedule. Rule 3. After the word "earnings" in line 17, page 38, the following words added:—"or the sum of sixteen shillings, whichever of the said sums is the greater."
This amendment is designed to remove an anomaly in the schedule as it now stands. As it stands a workman whose pre-accident earnings were £1 a week would receive compensation at the rate of 16/-, while a workman whose pre-accident earnings were 21/- would receive only 15/9. The effect of the amendment is that there would be a minimum of 16/-.
How does that vary from the present Bill?
Of course we are changing the whole basis of compensation. The maximum and minimum amounts are being changed, and also the percentage, so I could not very easily give the Deputy a comparison.
I move: That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendments Nos. 22 and 23:—
Fifth Schedule. Paragraph 9. After the word "Bank" in line 43, page 40, the words "or in Savings Certificates" inserted.
Fifth Schedule. Paragraph 11. After the word "Bank" in line 51, page 40, the words "or in Savings Certificates" inserted.
I move: That the Committee agree with the Seanad in amendment No. 24:—
Sixth Schedule. The following added at the end of the tabular statement:—
"Poisoning by bénzene and its homologues, or the sequelæ.
Poisoning by nitrous fumes or its sequelæ.
Dermatitis, produced by dust or liquids.
Epitheliomatous cancer or ulceration of the skin due to tar, pitch, bitumen, mineral oil or paraffin, or any compound, product or residue of any of these substances.
Cataract in glassworkers.
Handling benzene or any of its homologues, or any process in the manufacture or involving the use thereof.
Any process in which nitrous fumes are evolved.
Handling or use of tar, pitch, bitumen, mineral oil or paraffin, or any compound, product or residue of any of these substances.
Any process in the manufacture of glass involving exposure to the glare of molten glass."
The diseases set out here were on the schedule to the Act of 1906. We did not include them in the schedule to the Bill, because no cases of them had arisen in the Saorstát, and there was in the Bill power to add diseases to the schedule at any time by order. It was represented in the Seanad that some of the industries out of which these diseases might arise may be or are being established and in consequence it was preferable to have them in the schedule to the Bill.
How many of them are there?
There are a number in the schedule already.
But how many are added?
There are five.
What are they?
They are set out there. Some of them have long names which I could not pronounce.
