Private Deputies Business. - Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Bill, 1952—Second Stage (Resumed). – Dáil Éireann (14th Dáil) – Friday, 6 Feb 1953

Private Deputies Business. - Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Bill, 1952—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Hickey

As I stated on Wednesday, I hope this Bill will be dealtwith in a non-Party manner. With a view to avoiding repetition, I am not going over the details which have been put by Deputy Norton and Deputy Larkin on the merits of this simple Bill. I look upon the Minister's attitude last night as somewhat cynical regarding our reason for asking for 90/- a week as payment for injured workers. In 1934 workers were paid 30/- when injured; this was subsequently increased to 37/6 and in 1948 to 50/-. Even at 50/- the purchasing power of money then was worth only 22/6 as compared with 1938 and 1939. Even if the 90/- we are now asking were paid, the purchasing power, according to the Government's own figure, is only equal to that of 40/6 as compared with 1938/39.

We are not satisfied that even 90/- a week is a proper figure to ask for injured workers to-day. Quite a number have been drawing £6 to £8 a week and the moment they are injured they are thrown back to 50/-. We feel that 90/- is not doing justice to them, but we came to the conclusion that it was better to fix a figure on which it would be possible to get agreement rather than ask for what most of us desire to get for them.

We have at the moment quite a number of members involved in workmen's compensation. It may surprise some members of the House to know that some of these workers have been drawing it for three or four years and some of them for six or seven years or more. These are men who were earning good wages and who have wives and families. It is hardly necessary to stress that the condition of those workers' homes at the moment is a very distressing one.

Someone mentioned last night that the insurance companies would come into this. Of course they will, and they are rather interested in it. I looked up the figures for the amounts collected in this country by non-nationally-owned insurance companies. The latest figure I have is for 1951, when they collected £8,432,000. From 1944 to 1951, inclusive, they have collected £49,141,077. That should convinceanyone, in view of the figures Deputy Larkin gave last evening about insurance companies dealing with workmen's compensation. It is little surprise to me to read in the Cork Examinerthis week a notice of workmen's compensation insurance reduction of 20 per cent. The advertisement reads: “20 per cent. reduction in present premium now guaranteed to industrial concerns, builders, creameries, pit owners and all others who pay this type of insurance; obtain quotation now; maximum security at minimum cost.” I suggest to the House that, in asking for 90/- and in asking for an increase on the amount at present paid to widows and orphans of those who meet with fatal accidents, our demand is a very moderate one indeed.

It might be better to bring home to the House what that means. There appeared in the newspapers on the 16th of last October the following news item: "£600 for a widow and nine children—The widow and nine children of John O'Halloran, carpenter, who was killed in May when he fell from a scaffolding at the Limerick mills of Rank's, Ltd., were awarded in the Circuit Court to-day £600 workmen's compensation. Mrs. O'Halloran will get £186." That is something to make one look around with concern. Here is a worker, probably earning £8 a week, and because he falls and is killed in the course of his work, his widow gets only £186 out of the total of £600 maximum which she could get under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

I hope this Bill will be treated as a non-Party measure. We have certain other amendments to the Act and they are long overdue. The Act is of very old standing and was built up in the years of conservative Governments both here and outside the country. I hope there will be no division of opinion about it. There are other items we are anxious to have dealt with. One is the right of workers to come under the common law. I know one case at the moment of a man injured over 18 months ago. He has been lying in hospital on his back and cannot stir. We are satisfied that that man met with the accident by reason of carelessnessand defective machinery, but under the law he cannot get workmen's compensation, so he has to live on what the national health authorities provide for him while his case is being decided. We claim that that man should not be deprived of coming within the scope of workmen's compensation payments, even if he were to take weekly payments.

I know another man who was very seriously injured and who accepted workmen's compensation before consulting anybody, with the result that he cannot now proceed under the common law. I was a witness in a case in which a docker was instantly killed when a sack of grain fell upon him. An action was taken under the common law and a verdict in favour of his widow and children secured, but the insurance company appealed to the Supreme Court and the case was thrown out, because that man had taken a risk which he should not have taken in carrying a sack of grain up a plank.

We are anxious to keep these cases out of court but we are not asking for that at the moment. When workers who have fallen sick and are unable to work for six months resume work, they may meet with an injury after a couple of weeks or months, and in that case the worker cannot get even the 50/- under the Workmen's Compensation Act because the compensation is based on his average earnings over the previous 12 months. We are not making any claim in that respect at the moment. We confine ourselves to three points: An increase in the weekly payments to 90/-; an increase in the present payment to the widows and orphans; and the right of workers who are injured to proceed under the common law whenever they think such a course necessary or desirable. Deputy Norton and Deputy Larkin have put our viewpoint in a reasonable way and I hope that the Bill will be dealt with on a non-Party basis.

Mr. Cogan

Everyone will sympathise with the objective of this Bill. It is, however, desirable that the whole matter of workmen's compensation should be lifted out of the chaos in which it is at present, that theprovision for workers who are disabled because of accidents should be incorporated in our social service code and that the worker who is incapacitated through injury should enjoy the same security and the same system of compensation and support as is provided under the National Health Insurance Acts. It is wrong that when a worker finds himself unable to work because of injury a complicated legal procedure has to be set up to secure justice for him. The present code is altogether too expensive and complicated. Of the amounts paid by the employer, either directly or through his insurance company, for the compensation of a worker, a very large percentage is diverted into the pockets of legal gentlemen and perhaps also of members of the medical profession. In some cases the worker who has received the injury gets the smallest portion, so that there is need for reform of the whole code.

If a man who, by the very nature of his employment, must depend for his existence upon the labour of his hands, is incapacitated, it is essential that he should be provided for and adequately provided for. There is provision in the Social Welfare Act for the man who is unable to work by reason of sickness or ill-health and there is provision for compensation by the employer for men who are incapacitated through injury in the course of their employment, but, between the two cases, there is wide scope for debate and discussion, and for legal proceedings as to whether a man should be compensated under the Workmen's Compensation Act or under the National Health Insurance Act. There is wide scope for endless legal proceedings and expense and it should be cleared up. There should be clear-cut and adequate provision under a State scheme for such a man and that means that we should aim at the nationalisation of workmen's compensation insurance.

I am not one of those who frequently advocate the extension of socialisation or nationalisation, but in this case I think it is clear that the worker's interest and the employer's interest would be better safeguarded in a national comprehensive scheme ofinsurance which would cover all types of inability to earn a living. I acknowledge—and I do not want to be misrepresented in this—that, under the workmen's compensation code, the employer is absolutely liable for the compensation of the worker and I am not advocating that that liability should be transferred from the employer directly to the State. What I am suggesting is that the employer, instead of being forced to go to some private financial firm or insurance company, can safeguard himself by complying with the Social Welfare Act which provides for the stamping of a card and the making of a weekly contribution. In other words, the employer's contribution to the insurance of his worker against accident should be combined with the insurance under the national health insurance regulations. That, I think, would remove a great deal of unnecessary legal expense.

If that were done, it would mean in effect that the worker who receives an injury in the ordinary course of employment, and not through any neglect on the part of his employer—because there, I think, the common law would come in, though I am not quite sure—would have no difficulty in claiming compensation. In the ordinary course of events, the worker who is entitled to benefit under the existing code should be entitled to benefit under a comprehensive scheme of social insurance and to draw his benefit directly from the Department of Social Welfare. It would follow, of course, that the employer would not enter into it. The question would simply lie between the worker and the Department of Social Welfare. On becoming incapacitated, he would make his application to the Department of Social Welfare, just as in the case of illness, and it would be for that Department to decide whether his claim was just or otherwise. In that decision, again the consideration would be whether he was really incapacitated or not; it would be purely a question of medical examination.

As it is at present, a great many other issues are raised. There is the issue whether the person received theinjury in the course of his employment. There are a great many questions of fact which, in case of disagreement, can only be settled in court. I think that all of that is unnecessary. Surely our aim should be to ensure that a man who is deprived of ability to earn his living, whether it be through illness or accident, should have a direct claim on the Department of Social Welfare and should be awarded a weekly benefit on an adequate scale. That is, I think, the lines along which reform should go.

As it is, the employer is liable entirely for any injury which may be received by his employee during the course of his employment. If the employee receives an injury, perhaps a serious injury, outside the ordinary course of employment, he is not entitled to any benefit under the workmen's compensation code. Of course that leads naturally to legal proceedings on a very large scale and on a very expensive scale. A great deal of the work of the Circuit Courts is confined to workmen's compensation cases because there is very often a conflict of evidence as to the time at which the accident occurred and also as to the extent of the incapacity of the workman. I think if the entire code were reformed, all that difficult and expensive litigation would be eliminated. It would, of course, be a question for consideration by the legal branch of the Department of Social Welfare as to the extent of the workman's incapacity. That is a matter which could be settled administratively and there would be no need for legal proceedings. It would eliminate legal action in regard to this whole matter of compensation for injured workmen. The legal profession have ample and adequate scope for earning a livelihood without cutting in on the compensation that is awarded to the ordinary manual worker.

There are other aspects of this question which make the present system undesirable. There is the question of the settlement of claims by means of lump sum payments. There you have a certain amount of haggling and bargaining carried on between representatives of insurance companies and representatives of the workers. Youhave workers' claims being bought and sold, if you like, in the same way as a beast is bought and sold in the market. There is the dividing of the last £5 or £10 or perhaps even of smaller sums though it is sometimes hard to get the legal profession to consider anything less than "tenners."

There is a social evil in regard to the whole matter of settling claims by lump sum payments. There is a temptation on the part of the worker to exaggerate a minor injury in order to receive a lump sum payment. If it is a minor injury, he will go to a solicitor and he will probably be told that his injury is much more serious than he thinks, that he will want to nurse it for a considerable time and that, if he does, it should be possible to secure settlement by way of a lump sum payment. Of course, portion of that lump sum would have to go to the solicitor and portion to a medical man.

Mr. Hickey

The Deputy must bear in mind that the whole thing is determined by medical evidence in the end.

Mr. Cogan

In cases decided in court there is often a conflict of medical evidence. That all gives scope for haggling and bargaining in regard to the worker's claim. If everything is decided by medical evidence, how is it that quite a large number of cases are settled out of court after a considerable amount of bargaining? That is something which is entirely undesirable. If the State undertakes the whole liability, having collected a weekly premium or contribution from the employer then I think that traffic will be, to a great extent, eliminated. I think it is not desirable or it should not be even possible for the worker to commute a weekly benefit for a lump sum payment. If this whole code is reformed and the compensation of workers is taken over by the Department of Social Welfare, that should not be permitted. The worker would be entitled to a weekly benefit so long as he is incapacitated and there should be no question of a lump sum compensation. I think there is a strong case for reform of the entire code, both from the workers' point of view and the employers' point of view.

There are employers who, on account of the accidents to their employees, find it difficult to insure their workers. Insurance companies may say to an employer: "You have had a considerable number of claims against our company over the past one, two or three years and for that reason we will not cover your liability." As we all know, insurance companies are to a great extent linked together. They have some kind of a protective trade union or something like that and if an insurance company once refuses to accept the liability of an employer others are also inclined to refuse except they are paid very high premiums. The whole code at present is open to very, very grave abuse on all sides. It should not be possible for the medical profession, the legal profession or insurance companies to make substantial profits out of the misfortunes of the ordinary workers. Whatever money is provided by way of compensation for workers should go almost entirely to the workers, less, of course, necessary administrative expenses.

Now that we have established a social welfare Department to deal with national insurance against ill-health and all other forms of hazard that the worker may have to face, I think it would not involve too great additional administrative expenses to transfer compensation insurance to that Department. I would ask both the Government and those who are sponsoring this Bill to think along those lines. If they do that I think we will eventually make our social welfare services much better than they are to-day and much more comprehensive.

There is, of course, the point that it is the employer and the employer alone who should bear liability for the compensation of the worker because the existence of that liability on the employer renders it necessary for him to take precautions in regard to the safety of the worker. That might have been all right as the Act was originally conceived but when it is possible for an employer to farm out his liabilities to insurance companies that incentive to safeguard the workers no longer exists. I cannot conceive in a Christian society that any employer would exposehis worker to unnecessary risks. If he did I think the common law should operate in that case in regard to compensation.

I would ask the Government to set to work immediately on an amendment of the Social Welfare Act of last year so as to incorporate in it the provision for workmen's compensation as a result of accidents and whatever increase is necessary in the contribution made by employers. I think that the employer who has got to pay very substantial sums by way of premium to an insurance company would very much prefer to pay that sum in compensation by way of contributions under the Social Welfare Act.

I hope the Government will face this problem along the lines I suggested. I think it is the best way to solve it. I think it is time to eliminate from our workmen's compensation code and from the social services excessive profits by outsiders who have no interest whatever in either the employer or worker but just want to get as much as they can out of them.

Mr. O'Higgins

In fact, the law is that no sum for legal costs can ever be taken out of the compensation payable to a workman.

Mr. Gallagher

That is the impression which one would get from the tone of the debate here.

Mr. O'Higgins

I agree. Deputy Cogan, as usual.

Mr. Davin

There is a split between Deputy Cogan and Deputy Cowan.

Mr. Gallagher

Deputy Davin is longer in this House than I am. He is well used to splits. I am making the case as I see it.

Mr. Davin

You will get slapped on the pants over the foreign insurance companies.

Mr. Gallagher

Deputy Davin has just sufficient intelligence to keep up his own end in this House, without trying to help me. I am satisfied, as I said earlier, that the whole question of workmen's compensation is not helping the worker at the present time. There is a case for this increased payment when a man is injured and certainly there is a great case for the increased compensation payable to a widow who is left with a large family. I think every Deputy in the House will agree with that. I think that anything that can be done—whether it be taken over by the State or by any other method—to bring about an improvement in the whole code of workmen's compensation will be welcomed on all sides of the House.

Mr. Keyes

It is refreshing to note the approach that has been made to this important measure by Deputies in this House, irrespective of Party. It reflects the Dáil in a new light. For the odd time it has an opportunity of displaying its ability as adebating assembly it is refreshing to see that the members of the House apply their minds in a common-sense way to a problem that is of common interest to everybody in the country.

This measure deals with workmen who are injured in the course of their employment—in other words, the soldiers of our industrial and agricultural army. When we come to discuss the wounded soldiers of any particular army we become enthusiastic on their behalf, but common-sense, and not enthusiasm, is asked for in relation to the matter of workmen's compensation in this country at present. I am sure everybody in the State recognises what an important function it is and that it calls for closer co-ordination and integration, eventually, with the social welfare code. It will take a long time to have it integrated, but we think it should be integrated with the social services of the country.

This measure does not appear to go fundamentally into the whole matter which will eventually have to be dealt with. This Bill deals, really, with a matter of urgency, based upon the social framework, such as it is, but relating that framework to the existing cost of living and the value or the lack of value of money. Consider the case of a man who is earning £8, £9 or £10 a week and who, in the course of his services, is rendered hors de combat.He becomes a hospital patient. His wife and family immediately become dependent on whatever they are entitled to receive from workmen's compensation. They now receive £2 10s. per week instead of the £10 which they received while the father was able to work.

The difference which that means in a home can readily be appreciated. That man may have four, five or six children. They will be able to struggle along the first week because there may be a few bob left over from the previous week. It is well known, however, that the average worker in this country, and in other countries, has no bank balance and is not able to put money by for the rainy day. He lives from day to day. That is the best he can do for his family. He is a useful member of the community because he spends the money which he earns. In 99 cases outof 100, when a man falls from a scaffolding or has an accident in a factory he has no money saved—because he has not been able to save it—to help him over the period while he is out of work through injury. He has to depend solely on what he gets from workmen's compensation.

The claims in this Bill are moderate. There have been rare cases in which good employers who valued their workmen continued to pay full wages during the time the workmen were absent from work as a result of injury which they sustained during the course of their work. That, indeed, is a very fine practice and it would be well if it were more generally adopted, but the fact of the matter is that it is infrequent and all too rare. A case could be made for the right of a workman, who gave of his best to his employer while he was fit, to full-time wages during his absence from work because of injury sustained during the course of his employment. After all, such a man has, in a few short minutes, lost his health and has to suffer pain and maybe operations and hospital treatment. In addition, he suffers the loss of his employment during his incapacity. It is far more costly to him to be sick than to be at work. No attempt has been made to help him in such circumstances except a very parsimonious workmen's compensation provision.

When the Military Pensions Bill was being debated in this House Deputy Cowan remarked that the framework of the original Bill was governed by a mean spirit and that it was devised in a mean atmosphere. If that is a good parliamentary word then I think we could apply it to the people who framed the original workmen's compensation legislation. They had a small-minded approach to the requirements of a man who was injured in the service of industry, agriculture or commerce in this country, and of his family who had to carry on while he was lying on the flat of his back.

Deputy Hickey mentioned a case that happened quite recently in Limerick City. I intended to refer toit myself because the young man who was killed in that accident was personally known to me, as is his family. They are a long line of carpenters and joiners in Limerick. In the prime of his life he fell from a scaffolding. He left a wife and nine children. I may say that it is one of the most tragic and poignant cases that I have ever come across. Of course, there is no question of workmen's compensation in his case, but what about his wife and nine children who were left completely unprovided for? Not one of the children is working. The eldest is, I think, about 16 or 17 and the youngest is only a baby.

Under the workmen's compensation code, the maximum that could be awarded in such a case is £600— divided, by some mathematical process, between the whole family from the youngest to the mother. The mother got something like £180 for the loss of her husband and to enable her to face the world and to rear that large family. Surely that amount of compensation does not adequately enable her to cater for the future of her children nor compensate her for the shock and the blow she has suffered as a result of the tragic death of her husband. I think that that figure of £600, which is the maximum which the courts are allowed to award in such cases no matter what number of dependent children there may be in the family, is scandalously low compensation. Surely there ought to be a per capitaarrangement.

The limitation on the amount of compensation is miserably small—£300 for one adult person and £600, irrespective of the number of dependents in family. I think that that is crying out loudly for redress. The measure which is now before the House seeks to redress the position. I am sure there will scarcely be any disagreement in the mind of any Deputy who examines the matter as to the figure of £1,800 which is to be the maximum that can be awarded in certain circumstances.

In this case we are suggesting £1,800 in substitution for the now obsolete figure of £600. If one were to take the O'Halloran case you would have under our proposal ten persons sharing in thatsum of £1,800 for the loss of the breadwinner who, perhaps, had been bringing in £8, £9 or £10 per week. I am sure no one in the House would suggest that the figure in this Bill is unreasonable. The idea is that it should be there until such time as suitable amending legislation is brought forward integrating social welfare and the workmen's compensation code.

The Bill also seeks that the weekly compensation should be raised from 50/- to 90/-. We have spoken about men who are earning £8, £9 and £10 per week. In their case, it is surely unfair to ask, as happens at the present time, that the weekly income should drop down to 50/-. Where that happens, a family may be able to carry on for the first week on the 50/-. In the second or third week they may succeed in getting some credit from the local shopkeeper because they have been good customers in the past, but in the fourth week the welcome for them will not be so warm. The shopkeeper will not want to continue giving credit. He will naturally ask, who is going to pay him, with the result that that family has to go on short rations.

How can a man who is ill, with a wife and family of three or four children, live on 50/- a week? The most they can do is to live in meagre comfort for about three days a week. I believe that if we had a different approach there could be a good case made for giving the man 100 per cent. of what he had been earning. You have to consider that in these cases a man has lost his health, and hence will have more expenses to meet than when he was in his employment. We know that in many cases good employers give full pay to their workmen during illness because their one anxiety is to get their health restored and get them back to work as soon as possible. I hope that the time will come when the State will follow the example of the good employer and pay its servants engaged in industry and agriculture full wages during the period when they are recuperating from illness. We are asking that 90/- take the place of the 50/-.

In view of the changes in the valueof money that, I think, is not an unreasonable request. We are particularly interested in this matter of weekly compensation payments because of the plight which families find themselves in when the breadwinner of a family is injured or is out due to illness.

As regards Section 8, you will find employers who, perhaps, feel a sense of guilt, due to their negligence in not providing proper protection for the machinery that led to serious accident, coming along and offering consolation and help, in their own interest of course, to the injured workman by trying to get him to accept workmen's compensation. The man, then in a sick and helpless condition, is often too ready to accept the offer which is made to him. One may say that Irish workers have a dread of the courts because their experience of them, generally speaking, has been to their disadvantage.

That is exemplified by a case that I heard of many years ago. It was that of a chap who was working on a scaffolding and fell. He came down on a heap of debris which acted as a sort of cushion for him and saved him from meeting with very serious injury. He was knocked out for a while. He went to a solicitor and got him to take up his case with an insurance company. After a good deal of correspondence, he eventually succeeded in getting £60 as a settlement. At the end of a long-drawn out business he went to see his solicitor and was then told about all the letters that had passed between the insurance company and himself. Finally, the solicitor presented him with his bill for £30, and handed this chap, who had fallen off the ladder, a cheque for the balance—£30.

I think that case is typical of the reluctance that many workers have of going to court. There is a saying that the wise man keeps away from the courts. We know, however, that the courts are there as a sheet-anchor and a protection for our people. On that question what we are seeking is to ensure that the worker ought to be made aware at the time of an accident of his rights at common law. He is more likely to do better for himself if he exercises that right. I understandthat a recent decision of the courts has been to the effect that, if an injured workman once avails himself of the Workmen's Compensation Act, he is debarred from seeking further remedy at common law. That is a matter which, I think, could be easily adjusted and ought to be. The injured workman ought to be made aware of the fact that, in the case of an accident, he has rights at common law and should not prejudice them by accepting a lump sum under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

This Bill is a simple one. It was admirably presented in the House by Deputy Norton, and even at this late hour I should like to congratulate him on the reasonable and fair-minded way in which he put it forward for acceptance by the members of the House. I want to support the appeal that has been made by Deputy Norton and other members of our Party that a Second Reading be given to this Bill so as to speed up the enactment of this very necessary and urgent legislation, the absence of which is causing such great hardships to injured workmen at the present time owing to the meagre nature of the compensation that is available to them.

Mr. O'Higgins

Would the Minister say when he will introduce his Bill?

Dr. Ryan

I undertook to introduce proposals before Easter.

Mr. O'Higgins

That is, proposals dealing with the compensation itself?

Dr. Ryan

Yes, compensation.

Mr. O'Higgins

And the matter dealt with in Section 8?

I am not sure that anything that I say now will have any influence on the Minister after he has more or less rejected the very sportsmanlike and risky offer which Deputy Norton made to him. I am not sure that any further discussion will do much good. I would urge the Minister, however, to realise that every Deputy who has spoken in this debate from his own side of the House as well as from this side of the House has spoken in favour of this measure and of every section of it, and particularly in favour of the section which proposes to give an immediate increase to the unfortunate people who are suffering as a result of accidents which occurred in the course of their employment.

The Minister candidly admitted at the outset that he had not had sufficient time to consider this matter. This measure was not rushed on the House. It was not introduced for the purpose of gaining political kudos. The Minister has always taken the linein previous legislation, especially social security measures, that he is always prepared to do more for the people coming under such legislation than the members of this group have expressed their willingness to do or have asked the House to do. The Minister has a decent and human outlook and this is a human matter for those who are trying to exist on £2 10s. a week. He has had over two months to consider this matter since the Bill was introduced, but he candidly confesses to-day that he has not given any consideration to the suggestion contained in one section of the Bill regarding the payment of £4 10s. per week.

Recently, a Minister had the full support of this House on a measure of this kind. The Minister for Defence introduced a measure which received the unanimous approval of the House yesterday. That Bill was brought in by the Minister for Defence, supported by the Government, dealing with a matter related to this kind of measure and it had the unanimous support of the House. In spite of the precarious position, from some people's point of view, of the finances of the country and the reduction in tax revenue, the Minister for Defence, in response to the request of every section of this House, brought in that measure and got approval for the Second Reading of it although it will cost the taxpayer a further £400,000 a year. The Minister for Social Welfare is in the fortunate position that he can take a decision now and say whether he will respond to the wishes of the majority of Deputies, and he merely asks us to postpone the matter for further consideration after he has been given two months to consider it.

I do not want to say anything that might be regarded as not being helpful, but I appeal to the Minister to give further consideration here and now to the generous, sportsmanlike and risky offer made by Deputy Norton, namely, to accept the principle of this very short measure on Second Reading and leave it to the free decision of the House or a vote in the ordinary way finally to decide what the figure should be, if he is not prepared to accept the figure of £4 10s., when the next stage of theBill comes up. The Minister is in the position, if he agrees to the Second Reading on these very clearly stated conditions, that he takes over responsibility for the measure and can bring forward for the approval of the majority of the House or of the whole House his own figure on the next stage of the Bill.

Does the Minister not realise that there is a very strong case to be made for an increase as the last increase given to the recipients of workmen's compensation was given as long ago as 1948? Even on the admitted increase in the cost of living since the last Budget there is a glaring case for that increase. Will the Minister not admit that the comprehensive measure which he says he will introduce in two months' time cannot come into operation for a considerable time? We have had experience of that in the case of the Social Welfare Bill and in the case of the promised health scheme. Everything does not turn out in the way the Minister wishes in matters of this kind and, therefore, whatever increased compensation might eventually be agreed to by the Minister with the approval of the House in connection with the proposed comprehensive measure would not come into operation before the beginning of next year. Surely that is not the wish of the Minister. He says that he could not bring in his own amending Bill because the high officers of his Department are engaged on more important matters. Is that a good reason why the recipients of workmen's compensation and their dependents should have to continue to exist on the miserable sum of £2 10s. per week?

I appeal to the Minister to say here and now that he will accept the Second Reading, the principle of this very limited measure. It will take some considerable time to prepare and present to the House a comprehensive measure of the kind the Minister has in mind, and in the meantime there is a glaring case for the increase asked for in this short measure. The Minister can provide for that increase in the way suggested by Deputy Norton or he has other ways and means of doing it if he has the will to do it.This is not a matter affecting the pockets of the taxpayers as in the case of the Military Service Pensions Bill, which, whenever it passes through this House, will be operative from the 1st January of this year. The Military Service Pensions Bill was brought in and the promise of an increase to those in receipt of special allowances and disability pensions was given because a case was made for these increases on the basis of the increase in the cost of living, quite apart from the fact that the majority of persons in receipt of military service pensions are receiving a pension as low as £6 13s. 4d. per year. The case in favour of an immediate increase, at any rate, in connection with workmen's compensation is related to the case made and accepted by the Minister for Defence and every section of the House and the Minister at any rate should copy the good example of his colleague, the Minister for Defence.

If the Minister is adamant in this matter that is all that can be said at present, but I make a final appeal to him to accept the risky offer which has been made by Deputy Norton for the purpose of getting general agreement and enabling the Minister to take over this measure on the condition that a majority of the House as a whole can finally fix the amount to be paid to the recipients of workmen's compensation as from the date of the coming into operation of this measure or whatever other measure may be brought in by the Minister at a later date.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Norton to conclude.

Mr. Norton

Will the Minister say something helpful?

Dr. Ryan

I cannot say anything more.

Mr. Norton

I thought the Minister would have shown some appreciation of the difficult position in which injured workmen are placed by indicating his willingness to accept the principle of this Bill and by taking steps to give effect to a measure of relief such as that contemplated by this Bill as speedily as possible. Apparently the Minister's attitude is still one of aloofnessin the matter of workmen's compensation and he has not in any sense disclosed whatever plans he may have in mind for dealing with the problem. In December last I asked the Minister whether he contemplated introducing a scheme of workmen's compensation during the present session of the Dáil, a session which runs until the summer recess. The Minister then stated that he did not contemplate introducing any legislation on workmen's compensation during that period and it is because the Minister stated he had no such intention that we find it necessary now, because of the hardships which are being endured by injured workmen, to introduce a Bill of this kind.

We have not claimed for the Bill that it represents an exhaustive review of the defects which are inherent in the present workmen's compensation code. We have not claimed for the Bill that it remedies all the defects. We realise that these defects and imperfections can only be dealt with in a comprehensive Bill and it is not within the power of an Opposition Party to introduce a Bill removing the major defects associated with our present workmen's compensation code.

We, therefore, set out to do three or four main things. Firstly, and this is the most urgent, we endeavoured to raise the amount of compensation which an injured workman can receive. We suggest that the present maximum of 50/- should be raised to 90/-. I could give many reasons why the maximum should be more than 90/- but in order to introduce a Bill which would command the support of both sides of the House we geared the Bill to a level maximum of 90/- per week. I could give many reasons why the compensation should be higher than that. I could give reasons why the compensation ought to be 75 per cent. of the injured workman's wages, no matter what sum of money he earns, in order to provide more reasonable compensation for the higher paid workman in the event of injury in the course of or arising out of his employment. I could give reasons why he should get his entire wages where, because of thenature of his occupation, he is exposed to risk of injury, risk which I think ought to be paid for by those who employ him at occupations which involve these special dangers.

We do not aim at perfection. We do not aim at doing anything extravagant. We sought only to adjust the present basis of compensation, maintaining the present structure but providing for additional compensation having regard to the steep rise in prices since the present level of compensation was fixed. We sought also to step up the compensation in respect of fatal injuries so that the dependents and children of workmen who lose their lives in the course of their employment will have more adequate compensation than they have to-day.

Let us bear in mind that there has been no upward revision of the compensation payable in fatal injury cases since 1934 and the need for revision must be obvious to everyone to-day. We sought also to remedy the hardship whereby, if an injured workman meets with an accident in the course of his employment through sheer negligence on the part of his employer, he will not be stopped at common law from taking an action against that negligent employer merely because, when he is semi-conscious perhaps, the employer or his agent or an insurance company shoves workmen's compensation into his hands or into the hands of his wife and gets a signature for it from the distraught and semi-conscious workman. We wanted to remedy that and lift the ceiling from £500 to £800. There we were prepared to discuss whether £800 was gearing it too high or whether we ought to adjust it at the lower level.

These are the four main purposes that this Bill sets out to achieve, but, again, in order to be reasonable in the matter and in order to get some speedy relief for the injured workman, we are prepared to say to the Minister: Remedy the defects which Section 8 in this Bill seeks to remedy; step up the compensation to the 90/-, and we will leave over for discussion at a later date in the light of any legislation which you have the question of gearingup the compensation to be paid in fatal cases and we can leave over, too, if you like, the question of the premium for insurability purposes.

I think that was offering to meet the situation fairly, and I am surprised the Minister, who professes sympathy with the claim, has not accepted the offer which was made. I am not sure, of course, that the Minister is not influenced in this matter by political considerations, because I must say that the only political speech that was made on the Bill was made by the Minister. Every Deputy, even those in his own Party, who spoke on the Bill discussed it from the point of view of the injured workman. It was left to the Minister to bring in the political seasoning in his speech.

If the Minister wants to discuss it against a political background, let us have that discussion by all means so that the Minister's intentions may be contrasted with his performances and so that whatever imperfections may have been associated with the inter-Party Government's approach to this matter can be contrasted likewise with the Minister's unfulfilled intentions.

What is the background? In 1934, the present Government introduced a Workmen's Compensation Bill. Up to 1934, the maximum compensation which an injured workman could get was 35/- per week. The Fianna Fáil Bill in 1934 reduced the maximum compensation from 35/- to 30/- per week. That was the first step taken by the Fianna Fáil Government in respect of workmen's compensation; they reduced the compensation by 5/- a week in 1934. Having reduced it from 35/- to 30/- per week in 1934, they then waited until 1943 — everybody knows the way the index figure moved between 1934 and 1943 — and they then gave him an increase of 7/6 because of the substantial rise in the cost of living.

The situation then was that in 1943 he had 37/6 per week. Bear in mind, however, that in 1932 he had 35/- a week, so the increase which the injured workman got under the Fianna Fáil Government was from 35/- in 1932 to 37/6 in 1943. Their sympathy with the injured workman was shown then.

What happened in the years from 1943 to 1948? He got nothing more from the Fianna Fáil Government. In 1932, before the Fianna Fáil Government came into power, he had 35/- per week; in 1948 he had 37/6 per week. In other words, Fianna Fáil permitted the injured workman to get an increase of 2/6 per week in the maximum compensation payable under the Workmen's Compensation Act in all that long period from 1932 to 1948. In 16 years they gave him an increase of 2/6 to compensate for the rise in prices between 1932 and 1948.

Then the Minister has the audacity to upbraid me and my colleagues in the last Government for not doing something in respect of workmen's compensation as if he was himself the economic messiah so far as injured workmen are concerned. That is mere fraudulent abuse, and the Minister must know it.

Let us see what we did do and let us contrast it with what the Minister's Government did in 16 years. In 16 years Fianna Fáil gave the injured workman 2/6 per week with the cost of living rising so high that Deputy Kissane, the former Parliamentary Secretary, put it on record in this House that the £ between 1939 and 1947 under the Fianna Fáil Government had been reduced to 8/-. It was against that background that the injured workman got an increase of 2/6 per week as compensation for the rise in prices over 16 years.

Let us have a look at what I did with workmen's compensation. I claim no credit for it, but I want to contrast it since the Minister raised this issue and wants a sharp political discussion on it. I am sorry but it is the Minister's speech that has provoked me to make these comparisons. Within 12 months of taking office we increased workmen's compensation by 12/6 per week. That was not too bad a performance—an increase of 12/6 a week within 12 months against 2/6 a week under Fianna Fáil over a period of 16 years. We lifted the ceiling up from £350 to £500 for non-manual workers and gave them a cover which they had not previously got. We made sure that those who were getting lower compensation than 50/- a week couldgo to the courts and have their compensation stepped up to 50/- a week.

These were substantial improvements, all done within 12 months, and if the Minister wants to make comparisons as to his performance in this matter as against mine or against what has happened in other countries, his performance will be a pretty puny one indeed. Within 12 months under Fianna Fáil a person got 2/6 a week increase on his original 35/-. Within 12 months he got an increase of 33? per cent. from us. That is not a bad performance, and if he Minister wants to contrast his with mine he can have it there.

The Minister asked where I got the figure of 90/- a week. I do not take any pride in that figure of 90/- as the maximum benefit possible as workman's compensation. As I explained, the figure was geared low to get the support of as many Deputies as possible in this House. But is there anything unreasonable in the figure of 90/- a week? Apparently it staggered the Minister. What are the facts of the situation? I have shown that under the pre-1934 legislation an injured workman could get 35/- a week; in other words, in 1932 he could get 35/- a week. Let us remember the increase in the cost-of-living index figure since 1932, when I think it was 50 over the 1914 level, the 1914 base being nought. By 1939 that index figure had gone up to 70 or 75, so that if you adjust the 35/- compensation which the workman had in 1932 to its 1939 purchasing power the adjustment would surely have brought the 35/- to £2. In other words, if he was getting £2 in 1939 he was getting only 35/- by 1932 standards.

We have had the statement by the Taoiseach in the House that it now takes 45/- to buy what £1 bought in 1939. Therefore, workmen's compensation ought to have been £2 in 1939 and that is only a 5/- adjustment of his 1932 compensation. If he had £2 in 1939 and if we want to give him the current purchasing power of £2 we arrived at according to the Taoiseach's estimate, I do not think there is anything unreasonable in the figure of 90/- built up on sheer mathematical calculationsthough in this case we are dealing with human flesh and blood and we are entitled to advert to every situation apart from the mathematical calculations as to what the compensation would be.

As to the pattern which our future legislation in respect of injured workmen should take I think there is scope there for differences of opinion and for an adjustment of views in the light of the facts confronting us. The original Workmen's Compensation Act was passed in order to enable the injured workman or his dependents to recover compensation in the case of temporary or fatal injuries from the person who employed him. Since then, however, a whole variety of agencies have come into the matter. There is the insurance company on the one hand and it is not just sheer love of the injured workman or of the employer that brings the insurance company in. There is the agency that collects the insurance premiums; there is the doctor; there is the solicitor and the lawyer. These agencies mill around the original workmen and are as important a part in the business as the workman.

Deputy Keyes has told the House a story which, while humorous, really describes the position of the workman in the modern workmen's compensation legislation so that you do not know who gets the most benefit out of the workman's injuries.

Frankly, I would prefer to see workmen's compensation taken over by the State and operated as a State scheme making no profit whatever and giving to the employer the lowest possible premiums and utilising whatever fund is created for the purpose of paying injured workmen. It is a sobering thought that if you look at the 1947 figures of the income from premiums for workmen's compensation paid to insurance companies and the money spent by those companies in paying compensation to the injured workman, the injured workman gets only 46 per cent. of the money which is paid in premiums; in other words the employer gets nothing back out of the £ and the injured workman does not get the £ but by the time everybody is finished with the employer's original£ the injured workman gets less than 10s. in benefit.

The employer gets nothing back and all these other agencies contrive to get more than 50 per cent. of the employer's premium in respect of workmen's compensation. You begin to ask there whether the Workmen's Compensation Act was passed for the injured workmen or whether it was enacted in order to enable us to rear up a workmen's compensation code which gives the workman less than half the premiums paid by his employer.

It ought to be possible to evolve a State scheme whereby the State would cover the employer against his liability towards the injured workman and I think a scheme on those lines is the most desirable thing for dealing with this whole situation. There is no cause for leaving it in private hands having regard to the way in which the premium income secured from the employer is utilised to-day. The injured workman gets the least portion of the pound in the distribution of it as between himself and all the other agencies. I would prefer to see this scheme administered by the State. I confess this, too, that I personally think it is better to give the widow of a deceased workman a pension rather than give her a lump sum— small as it is under our present legislation—which I fear will be frittered away in a short time. The widow is then thrown very largely on her own resources, except for the small pension she receives under the Widows' and Orphans' Pensions Act.

There is more of a case for having a yearly pension paid to the dependents of an injured worker than there is for giving a lump sum payable to the widow or for investment for the children—because the amounts we pay at present are paltry for these purposes. We make no adequate provision for the widow and no provision at all for the children. We have heard about the scattering of £600 amongst a widow and seven or eight children. One can imagine what she gets to help her to keep going and what is left to keep the children until they are 15 or 16 years of age. The whole conception is absurd.

I prefer to approach this from the angle in which the worker will be covered in such a manner as will enable the widow and children to get a reasonable pension. I have in mind something substantially higher than the widows' and orphans' pensions in the event of a workman losing his life during or arising out of his employment. I think that is the best solution and a more enduring solution. It is one which makes the best provision for the widow and the children — and they are the important consideration once the injured worker dies.

The Minister favours a scheme in which there would be an allowance to the injured workman, an allowance for dependents — his wife, presumably — and an allowance for children. I think there is a good deal to be said for that structure, but you need to have a climate in which you can rear a structure of that kind. As I said by way of interjection earlier, the real risk there is that if you leave insurance in private hands and if there is no obligation on the employer to insure, the temptation always will be to employ only single men. The employer will tend towards a reduction in his expenses, by employing single men, as they will cost less to insure than married men with dependents. That is a risk well known and recognised among trade unions — that it may lead to preference being given by certain classes of employers to single men, to the detriment of the economic interests of married men.

Therefore, I do not see anything wrong with the idea of raising the present maximum payment from 50s. to 90s. and allowing that structure to remain until such time as the State decides to take over the whole question of workmen's compensation, administering it as a State non-profit-making undertaking.

I do not think that there is any money to be made by the legal people out of workmen's compensation. I do not say this with any hostility to the legal profession, because where these cases go to court I do not think they make any money out of them.

Mr. O'Higgins

Many of them give their services completely free.

Mr. Norton

I have had experience of sending workmen to solicitors who have handled cases free of charge to them. In any case, I think the maximum legal expense is £15. Nor indeed, does the doctor get much, as the maximum he can get, if awarded by the court, is £5. The whole mechanism is an involved and complex one. The original authors of workmen's compensation wanted to produce a simple Act which it would be easy for everyone to read and understand, under which everyone would know where they stood; yet probably more case law has been built up on workmen's compensation than on any other Act of Parliament passed during the last 100 years. Worse than that — many people do not understand the case law and all kinds of complications arise. The Supreme Court gave a decision recently in a case which has been a feature of workmen's compensation for the last 20 years and only came up the other day when the case was being argued in the Supreme Court.

I would prefer to see a State tribunal, something like the machinery that exists for determining widows' and orphans' pensions or old age pensions, operated by the Department. It would be a kind of tribunal to which an injured workman might make application, where the facts could easily beestablished, whether he was injured on the job or not, and if he were, then his compensation would be determined. There would be no difficulty about having an argument with the employer, no difficulty as to what you are going to get in an action at common law, no need to go into the courts and wait until you get a place in the queue in the courts to have a case decided. The simpler the machinery the better. That is the reason why I prefer a scheme administered by the State.

It is not possible to make the progress on this Bill that I had hoped would be possible from the manner in which the House approached the question of improving the position of injured workmen. The Minister's attitude has made progress impossible, and the only thing we can do is to leave it to the House. Although this matter is being left to the House, I suppose the Minister will insist that his Party must be pushed into the Division Lobby against it, notwithstanding the sympathetic speeches which were made by members of his own Party. Even now the Minister may approach this matter in a sympathetic spirit and recognise that a case has been made, that there is a case to be met. We have given the Minister an easy way out of the situation and even now he ought to take it.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 33; Níl, 59.

Tá

Beirne, John.
Belton, John.
Byrne, Alfred.
Byrne, Thomas.
Cafferky, Dominick.
Collins, Seán.
Corish, Brendan.
Davin, William.
Desmond, Daniel.
Donnellan, Michael.
Doyle, Peadar S.
Dunne, Seán.
Everett, James.
Hickey, James.
Keyes, Michael.
Kyne, Thomas A.
Larkin, James.
Lynch, John (North Kerry).
MacBride, Seán.
MacEoin, Seán.
McQuillan, John.
Morrissey, Daniel.
Murphy, Michael P.
Murphy, William.
Norton, William.
O'Donnell, Patrick.
O'Hara, Thomas.
O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.)
Palmer, Patrick W.
Roddy, Joseph.
Rogers, Patrick J.
Sweetman, Gerard.
Tully, John.

Níl

Aiken, Frank.
Allen, Denis.
Bartley, Gerald.
Beegan, Patrick.
Blaney, Neil T.
Brennan, Joseph.
Breslin, Cormac.
Briscoe, Robert.
Buckley, Seán.
Burke, Patrick.
Butler, Bernard.
Calleary, Phelim A.
Carter, Frank.
Childers, Erskine.
Cogan, Patrick.
Colley, Harry.
Collins, James J.
Cowan, Peadar.
Crowley, Honor Mary.
Crowley, Tadhg.
Cunningham, Liam.
Derrig, Thomas.
de Valera, Vivion.
Fanning, John.
Flynn, John.
Flynn, Stephen.
Gallagher, Colm.
Gilbride, Eugene.
Harris, Thomas.
Hillery, Patrick J.
Boland, Gerald.
Brady, Philip A.
Brady, Seán.
Breathnach, Cormac.
Breen, Dan.
Hilliard, Michael.
Humphreys, Francis.
Kenneally, William.
Kennedy, Michael J.
Killilea, Mark.
Lemass, Seán.
Little, Patrick J.
Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough).
McCann, John.
McEllistrim, Thomas.
Maher, Peadar.
Moran, Michael.
Moylan, Seán.
Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Reilly, Matthew.
Ormonde, John.
Rice, Bridget M.
Ryan, James.
Ryan, Mary B.
Sheridan, Michael.
Smith, Patrick.
Traynor, Oscar.
Walsh, Laurence J.
Walsh, Thomas.

Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Mac Fheórais and Kyne; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Killilea.

Question declared lost.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Friday, 6 Feb 1953