That is the sole purpose of the Bill and the Chair has ruled that anything not dealing with the narrow issue of setting up weekly rates of compensation in the form set out in the Bill is contrary to the principle of the Bill as passed on the Second Stage. I have no responsibility for that. It is the decision of the Chair and I am as much bound by it as any Deputy in the House. May I say this to Deputy Lynch, if permitted to do so by the Chair? Deputy Lynch submitted an amendment the effect of which would be that not only would a single workman get compensation at the rate of 50/- per week, but that if he were married, a sum of 14/- should be paid in respect of his wife and that a further sum of 10/- should be paid if the injured workman had two or more children. I do not know whether Deputy Lynch appreciated the full significance of that but, if his colleague Deputy Corry were sitting beside him, he would. Let me tell the Deputy what would happen under the amendment if it were possible to discuss it. There is always the risk that an employer who wants to carry his own risks in respect of workmen's compensation, may try to keep these risks down to a minimum. If Deputy Lynch's amendment were carried he could do that and do it effectively by recruiting only single men and not recruiting married men, especially married men who had children, because they would be bigger liabilities. I am attracted to the principle of making provision for a married man but not under the present pattern of workmen's compensation because I cannot protect the married workman.