There is very little purpose in my attempting to cover many of the points of principle already touched upon in the discussion. There are, however, one or two general points to which I would draw attention because they have an important bearing on the contents of this present measure. It has been pointed out that we are dealing here with a temporarymeasure designed to retrieve a very desperate situation so far as injured workmen are concerned, injured workmen who are at present trying to eke out an existence on a maximum compensation payment of 50/- per week. The Minister has been pressed to recognise the necessity for dealing with the whole code of workmen's compensation in a comprehensive way.
It is known to the Minister, as it is known to many Deputies, that within 12 months of the passage of the 1934 Act—indeed, almost before the ink was dry—Judge Davitt, one of the leading members of the judiciary, submitted a very detailed memorandum pointing out the very grave defects in that Act even at that early stage. We are now in 1953, 20 years later, and we have not yet tackled the fundamental defects that showed themselves immediately following that comprehensive review of the position at that time. In the meantime, not only has the problem become more complicated and difficult with the growing accumulation of decisions but, in addition, there has been a big change in the general attitude, the public attitude and the attitude of the Legislature towards this whole question of social welfare and workmen's compensation.
It is time the Minister met his responsibility in this regard. While it is not possible at the moment to do more than deal with the position on an interim basis, before this Bill leaves the House the Minister should give a binding undertaking that in the next session an opportunity will be taken of dealing with the whole question of workmen's compensation on a comprehensive basis. We might then consider the suggestion made by Deputy Cowan of having the matter examined in a preliminary form through a Committee of this House.
Listening to the viewpoints expressed in this debate and observing the different methods of approach to the problem it is quite clear that, leaving aside Party affiliations altogether, there are divergent viewpoints as to the best manner in which to tackle this particular problem; that is, whether it be along the lines of the present system with a possiblestrengthening of it through compulsory insurance or turning over to an alternative system of State insurance. That is a matter upon which one will not get unanimous opinions even in the trade union and Labour movement, because the interests are so important that those who are closest to the problem are nervous and reluctant to commit themselves definitely to either one or the other approach to the problem since they realise they may be working in the dark and, through lack of knowledge and experience, may merely bring about fresh problems, problems which will not affect them personally, but will affect the persons most in need of their protection and their very careful consideration—that is the injured workman and his dependents.
I feel that the House should press the Minister to make it clear, both on his own behalf and on behalf of the Government, that at least before the end of the year we will be given the opportunity of remedying defects which have been apparent for more than 20 years in our workmen's compensation code, defects which immediately became apparent on the passing of the 1934 Act, and to which the attention of successive Governments has been directed by the leading experts of the Bar and the Bench, so far as this code of law is concerned.
So far as the present Bill is concerned and recognising that it is an interim measure, we welcome it. It is important to bear in mind—this is a point that I want to stress—that we have this Bill now because we had another Bill earlier in this House. It is unfortunate that the Government and the Minister were only made alive to their responsibilities when a private measure was introduced. However, let us give this credit to the Minister, that this Bill is now before us. It is to be hoped that, whatever else we fail to do before the House rises for the summer recess, we will see that this Bill is disposed of so far as this House is concerned. If we are going to be left with the long-term problem unsolved, by the failure to introduce a complete and comprehensive code, and if the Government and the Minister, whose primary responsibility it is to deal with this matter are again to be asslow in dealing with the bigger problem as they have been in introducing the present Bill, then we shall only have to try and pursue them by utilising the resources that we have in this House by means of a Private Member's Bill. There is that way of drawing attention to this very grave problem. Possibly, in that event the Government will accept the responsibility of dealing with the matter in a more efficient manner. This, at least, is one of the fields of legislation in which, by means of a private Bill, members of the House have some freedom of action. It is one which, in so far as we have got responsibility to injured workmen, we should utilise to the full, if the Government itself does not accept responsibility.
This Bill has some good features, and naturally we welcome them. There seems to be some doubt as to the possible effect of some of the new provisions. Discussion has already taken place in respect of the new feature introduced of providing payments for the wife and children of an injured workman. There have been fears expressed—leaving aside altogether whether it is a good feature to provide additional payments in this form—as to whether it may have adverse effects in so far as employment is concerned, as to whether or not there will be inducements or pressure exercised by employers in the way of giving preference to single men as against married men with family responsibilities. It is almost impossible to say whether that is going to happen or not.
I understand, in so far as the insurance companies are concerned, that their approach is that they do not propose to make a distinction as regards the assessment of premiums. Very likely what they will do is this: they will fix their new rates of premiums, when this Bill becomes law, not on the single or married man basis but on the higher risk—on the basis that all employees are all married men, that all have got wives and that all have got about 16 children, and will fix their premiums accordingly. How, in the course of time, employers will react to the new rates of premiums it is hard to say at the moment. Thereis, however, that possibility. The Minister's attention has already been drawn to it and apparently he is satisfied that it is not very great.
The Minister, in defending his line of approach to the present rate of weekly payments and his refusal to increase the general rate of 50/- by adding the 12/-, the 7/-, and the 14/-, sought to justify that by appealing to the House to keep the payment under the workmen's compensation in line with the Social Welfare Act. That is a completely fallacious argument. At no time has there been a parallel existence either in regard to national health or workmen's compensation payments or has there been any relationship established between them. The rates of national health benefit have been worked out solely on the basis of the general level of national income. That is not a factor so far as workmen's compensation is concerned. Deputy Norton has pointed out that it started with a very simple rule of thumb giving 75 per cent of average earnings. That was slashed in two by putting the ceiling at either 30/- or 50/-. Where there was, for example, in 1934, a relationship between the 22/6 national health benefit and the 30/- workmen's compensation, everyone knows that was a purely arbitrary figure. Previously, it had been 35/- and, because there was an adjustment in the amount in respect of fatal accidents, there was a compromise made in respect of weekly payments.
I think the Minister is not fair with the House in pleading for understanding and support for his approach or for his method of dealing with this question of weekly payments by arguing that, because the House is committed, through the passing of the Social Welfare Act to payments for a single man or woman, plus adult dependents' payments and plus payments for one or two children, automatically we ought to follow the same approach when dealing with the immediate problem of how to give some little additional assistance to the injured workman who is at present living on 50/- a week. Frankly, I feel that, until such time as the Ministerseeks to deal with workmen's compensation on a comprehensive basis, he is not entitled to submit that argument in defence of his present attitude. As the present Bill is a purely interim measure, we should deal with it on the basis on which we feel this question of workmen's compensation should be approached, that is to provide a certain payment, whether it be big or small, whether it be a lump sum or a percentage payment, to be made available to the injured workman or injured work woman, irrespective of their marital conditions and dependents, and nothing else. If that is to be the case, then it is a matter to determine to what extent the 50/-should be increased.
I want again to submit to the Minister that we are in a different field here, so far as finance is concerned. It is entirely different from the field in which we find ourselves when discussing rates of benefit under the Social Welfare Act. It is different in this respect, that here we are not dealing with public money. We are not imposing, except in the extremely limited way in which Government Departments themselves are employers, any additional expense on the public purse. We are dealing, in the first instance, with private individuals who are employers or with companies which are employers and, secondly, with a group of insurance companies whose sole interest, so far as workmen's compensation is concerned, is to discover to what extent it is going to be profitable for them to engage in this business. Why, therefore, should we concern ourselves in limiting the assistance which the injured workman should receive? That is the concern of the insurance companies, and they are the last element in this that should be considered.
In so far as employers are concerned, it may be argued that we should not impose undue charges on them from the point of view that these might affect industry, trade or commerce. They continue to tell us that they are still staggering under a tremendous burden of rates and taxes, and that another straw is going to break their back. That, of course, is fantastic.The charges for workmen's compensation insurance are not in their total sums very great. In the case of a business with a wage roll of, say, £10,000 a year, and employing ordinary mixed categories of workers, the total amount of premium paid to cover this particular risk would be a matter of £200 or £300 a year. That would be covering a staff of 25 to 40 people. Any reasonable addition that we may decide to make to the 50/- will not put any crippling weight upon any employer in this country. Anyway, if we accept the principle that a man who meets with an accident in the course of making profits for another man is entitled to be maintained during the course of his incapacity, automatically we have also to accept that the standard of his maintenance must bear some relationship to the ordinary standards of social justice and ethics that we maintain in this country. If, in 1934, this House was of the opinion and the present Government was of the opinion that a sum of 30/- was a fair and adequate amount for a single man or woman, how can they go back on ensuring that at least the same sum will be made available to the single man or woman in 1953, making due allowance for the changed value of money? If that is the position, on present day prices the figure then set down by the Fianna Fáil Government and embodied in the 1934 Act would require that in place of 50/- we would substitute a figure of roughly 69/-. There is no argument required about that.
The only argument the Minister has is: "Do not create difficulties for me because some day in future I propose to introduce a comprehensive measure under which I will deal with the question of industrial injuries on the basis of a State insurance scheme and when that happens I do not want to have the payments being made in respect of injuries getting too much out of line with the payments that are being made in regard to ordinary sickness." The Minister, quite clearly, is an awfully long way off that and, until he comes into this House on that basis and puts forward a comprehensive code based on the State insurancescheme, he cannot have the best of two worlds and he cannot plead for our indulgence in so far as the relationship of rates paid in respect of industrial injuries and ordinary sickness is concerned to meet his problem when we are not dealing with the question of compensation on an insurance basis at all but purely on the rule of thumb basis, that we have provided so much in the past and must now adjust it in the light of changing prices.
The Minister should not spoil even this interim measure by being too rigid in the figures set down. Quite clearly, there is an unanswerable argument for an increase on the present figure of 50/- to the single man or woman and if we can give something additional to a married man for a wife or children, even though there may be certain dangers in that, I personally would be prepared to take the risk because even if we increase the 50/- to 60/- or 65/-, if that has to cover not merely the man but his wife and four or five children, we are asking that man to do the impossible. The money is not sufficient and we should recognise that there is an exceptional burden in the case of the married man with a wife and dependent children.
I would press the Minister to have regard to the figure of 50/- and to leave aside altogether any question about imposing an undue burden on the employers. It is not an undue burden and everybody knows it. We will be told, for instance, that we have to have special regard to the position of farmers. In the case of a farmer employing, say, two farm labourers, at present his total premium runs somewhere between £5 to £6 a year. How much extra will be put on if we give something extra on the 50/-? I am sure no farmer either in this House or outside would object to what at most would amount to a few shillings extra a year.
The same argument applies in regard to industrial employment. The rates run from very small figures even up to the more dangerous claims of a relatively small number. If we are concerned with the position of insurance companies—I doubt if anybody is prepared to defend them in the House—itis quite well known that in so far as their management of the funds they collect is concerned, of the total premium income very nearly 50 per cent. is absorbed in management expenses and that, quite clearly, is a position that this House should not be prepared to concern itself about.
In the course of an earlier debate appeals were made to the Minister to try to remove the 50/- ceiling and leave the position on a straightforward percentage basis of the average wages. I do not know whether the Minister is prepared to consider that or not, but it is a matter about which we in the Labour Party have very strong views. There is, quite clearly, a complete contradiction. Take, for example, the case of an adult male worker who is earning £7 to £8 a week and whose effective compensation is limited to 50/- because of the operation of the ceiling. We can go to the other end of the scale and find a single girl, who, because of the operation of the 75 per cent. clause, can in fact get just as much compensation as the adult male worker who may have a large family depending on him and whose wages in the course of work may be three or four times as great as the single girl's. We apply a rigid rule of 50/- and completely cut across the whole principle on which we originally approached the problem. On Committee Stage we will of necessity have to try to ask the Minister to consider it from that aspect by putting down a suitable amendment.
There are two other matters I would ask the Minister to consider. We have not got very much time to deal with this Bill. We hope to get it through. Possibly, between this and Committee Stage he may give some thought to the points we are making before actual amendments are put before him. In respect of non-manual workers, the Bill proposes to raise the income limit to £600. I would appeal to the Minister to give further thought to that matter. Changes have taken place in the rates of salaries for clerical workers during recent years. Pre-war, clerical workers were very largely unorganised and a great percentage of them worked atrates of wages which were low in themselves and in many cases were not above those of manual workers. Through organisation and through a better appreciation on the part of employers, there have been considerable improvements and ordinary clerical employees who would be regarded merely as senior clerks are now in receipt of salaries that carry them above that £600 limit. They are, in every sense of the word, ordinary employees, but they are not in a better position to make provision for any accident they may meet with in relation to other workers because the margin of their salaries is not so great. As I pointed out before to the Minister, to the extent that we are trying to adjust these rates to present-day standards, to-day, so far as our discussions on the Health Bill show, we recognise that a man earning up to £1,000 a year is not in a position, out of that salary, to make provision for many of the illnesses that befall men and women in these days, if the illness is very prolonged. If that is the case in regard to an ordinary illness which, maybe, a man brings upon himself by his indulgence or his stupidity, how much stronger is the case for consideration where he may meet with an accident which is entirely beyond his control or beyond any measuse that he may take to protect himself and which may involve him in very heavy expense for a prolonged period?
I frankly think that we should raise that income limit above £600. Again, I recognise it is a question of keeping two different codes in parallel. But we have not really got two codes here. We have the social welfare code which, whatever may be its defects, is complete in itself. So far as the Workmen's Compensation Act is concerned, we have an Act and a collection of legal decisions made over the years in which even lawyers get lost, and which is purely a rule of thumb way of dealing with a very serious problem. We should not introduce into our Workmen's Compensation Acts codes which are not applicable until the Minister and the Government make up their minds as to whether they are to be applicable.
The same thing applies in regard to the limit in respect of payments todependents in the case of fatal accidents. Again, I think that purely as a measure of justice, if we are merely equating the present limit to what the limit was under the 1934 Act, then the £600 should be made £1,200. As I say, it is a rule of thumb measure. Why should we not get at it in an exact manner, and why should we try to excuse ourselves by bringing in principles from another system of codes altogether in respect of both the employers and the insurance companies? In the case of the employer, the additional sum put on him will be very small and, in the case of the insurance companies, why should anyone come before the bar of this House and plead for any consideration for them?
In regard to the medical expenses, I notice that a little while ago the Minister intervened to make some remarks in respect of payments to eight, nine or ten doctors. Of course, that is an exaggeration. The Minister knows that it is essential on many occasions, in order properly to defend the interests of an injured worker, to have not only competent but highly experienced medical men. Very often you have to pay for the reputation of the doctor in order to win a workmen's compensation case. It is a bit of a peculiarity that the expenses are limited to £5 and that that £5 can only be got through the process of court proceedings. Only the other day in a large public institution under the control of the Minister in his other Department, I had to ask for the refund of a deduction made from an employee's salary where that employee was taken by ambulance for medical examination in the hospital. I was coldly told that they did not know whether they could refund it or not, that they might be surcharged because there had been no court proceedings as there was no provision for the payment of any medical expenses outside of the section of the Act providing for the maximum sum of £5. Luckily enough, many of the officials in carrying on the work under the control of the Minister have got a little understanding of it and a little compassion, as I am quite sure the Minister has.I think that if he looks at the problem, the limit of £5 might at least, as has been suggested to him, be doubled and made £10. The Minister would not be taking a very big chance and the doctors will not get away with very much. As things stand, it is very hard on a workman when he meets with an accident and requires medical treatment, because both doctors and hospitals are getting very wise and are looking for payment. We will have to re-examine this whole question of medical expenses, and at least in the interim measure there should be some increase on that figure of £5, even if it were only to double it for the moment.
I do not know what the Minister's intention is with regard to the Committee Stage. As I say, it is most essential that we should get a reasonable opportunity of putting in amendments for the Committee Stage, but we are also most earnestly interested in ensuring that the Bill will go through the House before we rise for the summer recess. We hope that we will be at one with the Minister in ensuring that, no matter what will be the other pressures on the House. At the same time the Minister will appreciate that the Bill has got our goodwill. We appreciate the fact that it has been brought in before the House rises. If we find it necessary to put down some amendments, I hope he will allow us at least a minimum time to do that so that we can even on this simple measure do the best we can in the circumstances for these injured workmen and their dependents. I hope the Minister will find it possible to give a very definite assurance that before the end of this year anyway we will be given an opportunity of reviewing the whole of the workmen's compensation code.
