Tairgim go léifear an Bille an Dara Uair.
Bille é seo chun scéim nua a chur ar fáil in áit na scéime atá ann i láthair na huaire faoi na hAchtanna um Chúiteamh do Lucht Oibre, 1934 go 1955. Séard atá beartaithe ná an Scéim Árachais Shóisialaigh a leathnú chun freastail ar díobhálacha agus galair cheirde agus cuirfear íocaíochtaí níos fearr ar fáil d'oibrithe gortaithe agus a gcleithiúnaithe, ar chostas réasúnta. In ionad an freagracht seo maidir le cúiteamh do lucht oibre bheith leagtha go díreach ar an bhfostóir mar atá faoi láthair, freagracht a mbíonn sé ìnárachaithe ina éadan de ghnáth, íocfaidh mo Roinnse sochair leasa shóisíalaigh má deintear díobháil pearsanta d'oibrí de dheasca agus i gcúrsa na fostaíochta.
Mar is eol do Theachtaí, cuireadh Coimisiún ar bun chun iniúchadh a dhéanamh ar an gceist seo agus thairg an Coimisiún seo dhá tuarascáil dhom i 1962. T'réis dhom staidéar a dhéanamh ar na tuarascáil seo bhí mé sásta nárbh' fhearr rud a dhéanfaí ná an Bille seo a rith. Bhí sé soiléir gur scéim casta, costasach atá ann faoi láthair, a riaradh scaipthe imeasc na comhluchtanna árachais, socraithe á ndéanamh ins na cúirteanna agus mar sin de, agus go mbéadh cúiteamh i bhfad níos fearr le fáil ag oibrithe ar an gcostas céanna faoi scéim den chineál atá ghá moladh agam sa Bhille seo.
Tosóidh an scéim nua ar lá a bhéas socraithe de réir Ordú. Riarófar í ó chiste lena ndéanfaidh fostóirí amháin ranníoca. Beidh na ranníoca seo de réir 2/1d sa tseachtain d'oibrí fir agus 1/6d sa tseachtain d'oibrí mná. Ar an iomlán, siad na hoibrithe a thiocfaidh faoin scéim nua ná iad siúd a thigeann faoin scéim um cúiteamh do lucht oibre anois, ach beidh cineálacha eile oibrithe inárachaithe faoin scéim nua freisin.
Is mór an difríocht atá idir na sochair a íocfar faoin scéim nua agus na híocaíochtaí faoin sean scéim. Ar feadh sé seachtain's fiche díreach taréis na timpiste, agus an t-oibrí gan a bheith in ann obair a dhéanamh de bharr gortaithe, gheobhaidh sé liúntas, ar a dtugtar "sochar díobhála" de 115/- sa tseachtain. Beidh méadú ar seo de réir 40/- sa tseachtain le haghaidh cleithiúnaí aosaithe, 13/- an duine sa tseachtain le haghaidh na céad beirte clainne agus 8/- an duine sa tseachtain le haghaidh gach páiste eile sa chlann. íocfar na méadaithe seo i leith páistí atá faoi 16 bliana d'aois agus páistí atá idir 16 bliana agus 18 bliana atá ar scoil, i bprintíseacht ar bheagán pá nó ina mbreoiteacháin. Mar sin de, féadfaidh fear gortaithe a bhfuil céile agus beirt pháiste aige, sochar díobhála seachtainiúil a shroisfidh £9 1s. ina iomlán d'fháil.
Nuair a bhéas deireadh leis an sochar díobhála beidh an t-oibrí i dteideal sochar nua, "sochar míthreorach", d'fháil, agus, fá na choinne seo, is cuma é bheith in ann, nó gan a bheith in ann, obair a dhéanamh. Is ar mhíthreoir oibrí de bharr na timpiste a bhéas an teideal don sochar seo ag brath. Íocfar pinsean de 115/-sa tseachtain i gcás in a bhfuil an míthreoir go hiomlán—cuir i gcás, go bhfuil sé dall ar fad—agus íocfar pinsean ag ráta níos ísle de réir míthreóra an iarrthóra. íocfar an ráta iomlán le haghaidh tréimhse ar bith in a mbeidh an t-oibrí ag fáil cóir leighis in ospidéal pé aca gur ag an ráta iomlán nó ráta níos ísle atá pinsean á íoc leis. Íocfar na méadaithe le haghaidh cleithiúnaithe, mar i gcás sochair díobhála, leis an bpinsean ar feadh na tréimhse seo freisin, muna bhfuil na méadaithe chéanna á n-íoc leis an oibrí i dteannta le sochar míchumais faoi na hAchtanna Leasa Shóisialaigh. Má bhíonn an míthreoir níos lú ná 20 per cent den iomlán íocfar cnapshuim airgid nach mó ná £380 leis an oibrí in ionad pinsin. Méadófar an pinsean míthreorach de réir 52/6d sa tseachtain, maraon le méadaithe eile le haghaidh cleithiúnaithe, má bhíonn an t-oibrí, de bharr na timpiste, gortaithe go buan agus gan a bheith ábalta obair a dhéanamh ar feadh an chuid eile dá shaol. Méadófar an pinsean, freisin, de réir liúntais suas go dtí 40/- sa bhreis sa tseachtain, nó 80/- sa bhreis sa tseachtain i gcás ar bith in a bhfuil an t-oibrí gortaithe go mór, má caithfear aire a thabhairt dó i rith an ama uilig agus é taobh amuigh d'ospidéal. Beidh na sochair le haghaidh mná pósta éagsúla, daoine faoi 18 bliana, ag rátaí níos ísle. Beidh na rátaí seo thart fá dhá-thrian den ghnáth ráta.
Beidh an mhéid sochair a bhéas iníoctha d'oibrí gortaithe, teoranta de réir gnáth pá iomlán seachtaine an oibrí ag am na timpiste. Maidir leis an uasteora seo, áfach, glacfar árdaithe pá san bhfostaíocht in ar tharla timpiste san áireamh.
Le cois na sochar thuasluaite tá sé beartaithe faoin mBille go n-íocfar costaisí leighis atá réasunta agus riachtanach, agus a éiríonn as timpiste cheirde. Íocfar na costaisí seo san mhéid nach mbeidh siad iníoctha faoi forálacha na hAchtanna Sláinte nó na hAchtanna Cóireála Meabhair-Ghalar, nó de réir sochair cóireála faoi na hAchtanna Leasa Shóisialaigh. Faoi fhoráil seo an Bhille íocfar costas ar bith a thuiteann ar an oibrí de bharr cóir ospidéil faoi na hAchtanna Sláinte, nó cóir liachta nó aire banliachta taobh amuigh d'ospidéal, nó soláthairí leighis, maraon le géaga bréige. Déanfar íocaíochtaí freisin i leith chostaisí a bhaineann le athshlánú oibrí.
I gcás báis oibrí de dheasca tionóisce íocfar pinsean de 95/- sa tseachtain lena bhaintreach maraon le méadaithe le haghaidh páistí, ar aon dul leis na méadaithe a bhéas iníoctha le sochar díobhála. Faoi na forálacha seo, freisin, beidh pinsean de 47/6d sa tseachtain iníoctha i leith dilleachtaí agus pinsin de 24/- sa tseachtain do thuismitheoir nó do bheirt tuismitheoir cleithiúnaí.
Má fhaigheann bean bás de thoradh timpiste cheirde, gheobhaidh cleithiúnaí baintreach fir dí, nach mbeidh ábalta obair a dhéanamh choíche, pinsean a bhéas ar aon dul le pinsean baintrí mná. Más rud é nach duine é nach mbeidh in ann obair a dhéanamh choíche ach go raibh sé i gcleithiúnas a mhná chéile, gheobhaidh sé suim airgid de £247. Íocfar deontas tórraimh de £50 taréis báis de thoradh timpiste.
Sé an taon choinníoll amháin le haghaidh ceann ar bith de na sochair a lua mé ná go dtárlódh an timpiste don oibrí de dheasca agus i gcúrsa fostaíochta inárachaithe. Tá coinníoll cosúil le seo i réim san am faoi láthair faoin scéim um chúiteamh do lucht oibre. Tá forálacha sa bhreis san mBille seo áfach chun go mbeidh sé níos fusa an coinníoll seo a shásamh. Mar shompla, de réir forálacha an Bhille, beidh sé inghlactha gur de dheasca fostaíochta a éirigh timpiste a thárla d'oibrí i gcúrsa fostaíochta, muna bhfuil fianaise a thaispeánann a mhalairt. Mar an gcéanna, beidh sé inghlactha freisin gur éirigh a leithéid de thimpiste de dheasca fostaíochta más é droch-bhéas oibrí is cúis leis an timpist nó má bhuaileann aon ní nó splanc thintrí an t-oibrí, agus muna ndearna an t-oibrí aon ní a tharraing an timpiste air féin.
Ní amháin go n-íocfaí an sochair san Bhille seo de bharr timpistí a tharlaíonn i gcúrsa fostaíochta íocfar iad freisin de bharr galair a bhuaileas oibrí de dheasca a chinéal fostaíochta.
I gcás timpistí a tharla nó galair a thóg oibrithe roimh teacht na scéime nua i bhfeidhm, beidh ar fhostóirí cúiteamh faoi na hAchtanna um Chúiteamh do Lucht Oibre a íoc mar is ghnáth faoi láthair. Tá forálacha san mBille faoinar féidir leis na daoine atá ag fáil íocaíochtaí chúiteamh lucht oibre agus nach mbeidh in ann obair a dhéanamh choíche, ceart a bheith acu íocaíocht de réir 52/6 sa tseachtain d'fháil maraon le méadaithe le haghaidh cleithiúnaithe san dóigh céanna le duine atá i dteideal sochar míthreorach d'fháil.
San mBille freisin tá forálacha faoina bhfuil ceart ag faighteoirí chúiteamh lucht oibre liúntas de réir 40/- sa tseachtain, nó 80/- i gcásanna speisialta, más gá aire a thabhairt dóibh i rith an ama uilig. Tá sé ar intinn freisin méid iomlán de shochar míchumais faoi na hAchtanna Leasa Shóisialaigh a íoc, taréis tús na scéime seo, maraon le híocaíochtaí cúiteamh lucht oibre i gcásanna nach bhfuil an liúntas breise de réir 52/6 sa tseachtain a rinne mé tagairt dó, iníoctha. Faoi na rialacha atá ann faoi láthair ní íoctair sochar míchumais faoi na hAchtanna Leasa Shóisialaigh le haon íocaíocht seachtainiúil faoi na hAchtanna um Chúiteamh do Lucht Oibre ach san mhéid ina bhfuil sé níos mó ná an íocaíocht sin. Mar thoradh ar seo, gheobhaidh fear ar bith, atá ag fáil íocaíochtaí cúitimh do réir £4 10s Od sa tseachtain anois, sochar míchumais de 52/6 sa tseachtain más fear singil é, nó 92/6d más fear pósta é maraon le liúntais i leith páistí, le cois na híocaíochtaí cúitimh. Laghdófar na híocaíochtaí seo i gcás ar bith ina bhfuil siad, san iomlán, níos mó ná an pá san bhfostaíocht as ar éirigh an cúiteamh.
Ní chuireann an Bille seo isteach ar chearta an oibrí damáistí a éileamh faoin dhlí coiteann as neamart fostóra nó páirtí eile. Tá forálacha san mBille, áfach, chun an sochar a bhéas ag dul don oibrí faoin mBille seo ar feadh tréimhse cúig bliana, a chur san áireamh nuair a bhíonn damáistí á meas.
Riaróidh an Roinn Leasa Shóisialaigh an scéim nua san dóigh céanna le sochair Leasa Shóisialaigh eile. Béarfaidh Oifigigh Bhreithiúnachta na Roinne breitheanna ar an teideal do shochar. Beidh comhairle ó chomhairleoirí liachta na Roinne agus ó shaineolaí liachta le fáil ag na hoifigigh seo nuair a bhíonn gá leis. Féadfaidh duine ar bith nach bhfuil sásta le breith oifigigh breithiúnachta achomharc a dhéanamh ach ní bheidh ceart ag duine achomharc a dhéanamh in éadan meastachán sealadach sochair. Breathnófar ar na meastacháin seo taréis beagán ama. Tá forálacha freisin san mBille a chuireann de dhualgas ar na hoibrithe fógraí a thabhairt dá bhfhostóirí i dtaobh timpistí a b'fhéidir go n-éireodh éilimh astu. Beidh sé de dhualgas ar na fostóirí freisin faoi fhorálacha an Bhille fógraí a thabhairt i dtaobh timpistí agus gach eolas is gá a thabhairt i dtaobh na n-éileamh.
Céim mhór ar aghaidh i gcúrsaí leasa shóisialaigh is ea an Bille seo agus molaim don Dáil glacadh leis.
For almost 70 years, since the first Workmen's Compensation Act of 1897, the compensation of workmen for employment injury, irrespective of any question of negligence, has been a direct liability, imposed by law, on the workman's employer. Under the existing Acts insurance by an employer to cover his liability is optional and it is a matter for the workman to make his claim and, in the event of dispute, to take steps to enforce it in the courts. The present levels of compensation, as last revised in the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1955, are briefly as follows:—
for total or partial incapacity for work, a maximum weekly payment of £4 10s. 0d. which may in defined circumstances be commuted into a lump sum on the application of either the employer or the workman —in other words it may be commuted into a lump sum without the consent of the workman—for medical expenses of an injured workman, a sum not exceeding £5 which a Court may order an employer to pay in addition to compensation; and for fatal accidents, a maximum payment by way of lump sum of £900 if there are adult dependants only or £1,800 where there are child dependants under the age of 16. A sum of £15, for medical expenses and burial, may be paid if there are no dependants.
The primary aim of this Bill, which replaces the present system of workmen's compensation by extending the existing social insurance scheme to provide for occupational injuries and diseases, is to provide better benefits, at reasonable cost to employers, for injured workmen and their dependants. Compensation for employment injury will henceforward be a social service rather than an obligation on an individual employer.
In December, 1955, the then Minister for Social Welfare set up a Commission to examine and report on the present system of workmen's compensation and its possible replacement by a scheme of national insurance, or otherwise. The Commission, whose members I would again like to thank for the very valuable work they did and for the time and care they devoted to their difficult task, made an exhaustive and detailed examination of the present system and possible alternatives. While agreeing that extensive changes in workmen's compensation were desirable, the Commission were unable to agree on the best method by which these should be achieved and two reports were furnished to me in 1962.
The Majority Report, signed by ten members of the Commission, favoured retention of the present system, based on direct liability of the workman's employer, with more than 70 recommended improvements. These recommendations included compulsory insurance of employers with commercial insurance companies against their workmen's compensation liability, an increase in the maximum weekly payment of compensation from £4 10s., where pre-accident earnings are £6 or more, to £7, where pre-accident earnings exceed £11 13s. 3d., but with no allowances for dependants nor provision for loss of faculty as distinct from incapacity for work. Pensions in lieu of lump sums for fatal accidents were also recommended. In regard to the recommendation requiring compulsory insurance, it has to be mentioned that in addition to information that some employers were unable to insure their workers because of prohibitive premiums, the Commission received evidence that certain native timber merchants are not covered by insurance because they cannot get an insurance company to accept the risk.
The Commission recommendation, therefore, as well as compelling employers to insure, would involve compulsion of insurance companies to accept certain proposals for insurance. Compulsory insurance involving the payment of premiums hitherto found to be prohibitive could of course lead to difficulties for the affected industries and hardship to the employers and workers concerned. The Minority Report, signed by five members of the Commission, agreed with the recommendations for improvements if the existing system continued but considered that the existing system even with the improvements would not represent the best method for dealing with employment injury or disease. They proposed that the existing system of workmen's compensation be abolished and replaced by the Social Insurance Occupational Injuries Scheme which was proposed to the Commission by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. This scheme was largely modelled on the industrial injuries schemes operating in Britain and Northern Ireland.
In determining the best way in which to make provision for employment injury, the principal considerations should obviously be the adequacy, both in range and amount, of the benefits to be provided to injured workmen and their dependants, and the provision of these benefits at minimum cost to employers and in such a way as to encourage as much as possible a workman's rehabilitation and return to work. It is also, of course, important that the benefits should be available without delay and that disputes between employers and workers in obtaining them should be eliminated as far as possible. Having most carefully considered the views of all the members of the Commission, I came to the conclusion, and I am happy to say that the Government agreed with me, that these requirements would best be met by the Bill which I am now submitting.
There are a number of fundamental faults in the present system, which would still remain even if that system were improved as the majority of the Commission recommended and which make it unsatisfactory as a means of financial protection in the case of persons injured or killed at their employment. In particular, the system allows too much scope for contention between the workman and the employer or his insurance company and rests in the last resort on the threat or practice of litigation. This tends to retard the workman's recovery and to prejudice good relations between him and his employer. Disputes are inevitable, with consequent hardship on injured workmen and their families where wages have terminated and compensation has not commenced. Numerous cases of this nature have come to the notice of my Department in dealing with interim claims for payment of disability benefit pending settlement of compensation claims.
A system under which compensation would be payable as a social service with the employer not involved in the claim is obviously more desirable. The present system also provides no financial aid for rehabilitation, no compensation for loss of faculty or disfigurement as distinct from incapacity for work and no allowances for dependants in respect of a non-fatal accident. Lump sum settlements are a major feature. Besides encouraging workmen to stay away from work until they receive them, these do not, in the Government's view, ensure the maintenance of necessary weekly income for injured workmen.
The system, even if the majority recommendations were implemented, would continue to be expensive and unwieldy: involving administration by insurance companies, the premiums of which would naturally include some element of profit; adjudication by the courts; a separate agency endeavouring to enforce compulsory insurance; a separate bureau for ensuring payment of compensation due where liability is not met otherwise; and, finally, a multiplicity of insurance companies lacking the procedural uniformity inherent in a centralised organisation and failing to provide security for injured workmen such as that which they now enjoy in regard to disability and unemployment benefits. The cost of administration of any such arrangement would be unnecessarily high and excessive by comparison with the scheme now proposed.
In the matter of overall cost, the contributions of employers under the Bill, to which I will refer at more length later, will amount to about £2,500,000 a year. This, together with their independent liability for common law damages, which was put by the Commission at between £930,000 and £1,150,000 if all employers were to insure against this risk, gives a total cost to employers of about £3,600,000 taking the higher figure. On the other hand, the majority of the commission calculated the cost of workmen's compensation with their improvements, and also including common law insurance, at between £2,990,000 and £3,190,000, while the minority of the commission disagreeing with these figures, put this cost at between £3,698,000 and £3,944,000. These estimates of the majority and minority did not, however, cover the cost of inpatient hospital services and outpatient specialist medical services to insured persons which the majority recommended should be met by the Social Insurance Fund, or the cost of enforcing compulsory insurance of workmen's compensation liability and of paying disability benefit to a workman immediately on his being entitled thereto without taking into account any question of his claim to workmen's compensation, which were also recommended. Including these costs, other than the cost of the medical services which were to be financed by increased contributions to the Social Insurance Fund, the total cost on the basis of the majority estimate could amount to £4,040,000 and, on the basis of the minority estimate, £4,794,000, and would involve also a small increase in the cost of the social insurance stamp.
I would like, however, to qualify the figures quoted by pointing out, as the Commission itself did, that any comparison of costs of this nature is fraught with uncertainty and it is not possible to indicate more than a general order of magnitude. I mention these figures merely to show in a general way that the cost of this scheme is not excessive by comparison with what employers would have had to pay if the majority proposals had been accepted. This is particularly so when one considers that the principal benefits in the Bill are about 18 per cent higher than those recommended by the minority in 1962 and, if a similar increase were made in the majority rates of compensation, their costs of their proposals as indicated above would be so much greater. It is, then, practically certain that the majority proposals would be more expensive than the proposals in this Bill which provides for benefits which are far superior.
While a comparison of overall costs can only be made in very general terms, a firmer assessment is possible regarding the proportion of contribution income to be returned in benefit. In this respect we can look to what has happened in the past when insurance companies provided cover against employers' liability including workmen's compensation. In this connection I will quote from the report of the minority of the Commission, who said:
Over the 33 years of the operation of the existing system for which figures are available to us, that is, from 1927 to 1959, less than 9/3d found its way into the hands of injured workmen in the form of workmen's compensation and damages at common law out of every £1 charged in premiums by the commercial insurance companies. Because of the very high awards in the Courts and settlements made out of Court in common law cases the actual amount out of each £1 of premium paid in compensation must have been significantly less than that figure. The balance of the £1 went to increase reserves and pay commission, expenses of management, and profits.
Under the proposals in the Bill, the entire income, less only costs of administration, will go in benefits to injured workmen, and, using the experience in Great Britain and Northern Ireland of a somewhat similar scheme and our own experience in administration of Social Welfare benefits, it is expected that the return in benefits should in the long-term be over 18/- in the £1. Moreover, the application of flat rate contributions to be collected on a single stamp with existing social insurance contributions, and involving no new enforcement machinery, and flat-rate benefits together with claims administration by one centralised Government Department rather than the involved system which I have already described dispersed over a number of insurance companies will clearly result in a considerable reduction in administration costs. Employers will, therefore, pay far less under the proposed scheme than they would have to pay if comparable amounts were to be paid to workmen by way of compensation under the existing system.
With regard to the most important question of benefits, Deputies will appreciate the obvious merit of the scheme in providing workmen and their dependants with a guaranteed payment, easily secured without recourse to litigation or dispute with employers. As I have already stated, the present system relies, in the last resort, on the threat or practice of litigation and this can place the injured workman in a very vulnerable position. The natural hesitancy of workmen, particularly those who look forward to resuming employment, to take court action against their employer, can result in workmen settling for less compensation than is properly due to them. On the other hand, it may happen that an employer who does not desire to take court action himself is forced to do so by his insurance company. The new arrangements will eliminate these objectionable features of the present system and thereby contribute towards more harmonious relations between employers and workers.
The range and amounts of the benefits provided are superior to those now afforded under the workmen's compensation system and to those recommended in the Majority Report. In regard to the increased range of benefits I would point to the provisions in the Bill for payments in respect of dependants and in respect of loss of faculty irrespective of whether there is incapacity for work, for pensions instead of lump sums in respect of both fatal and non-fatal accidents, for constant attendance required by a seriously disabled workman, and for medical care expenses. I consider the elimination of lump sum settlements of weekly payments of compensation to be a decided improvement. There can be few Deputies who have not come across cases in which the acceptance of lump sums has resulted in considerable and prolonged hardship due to the money being dissipated long before the need for compensation ended.
Information regarding the persons to be covered by the scheme and the benefits provided is given in the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill, and I will confine myself here to an outline, with some elaboration, of the main features. First, a word about the persons who will benefit under these proposals. Broadly speaking, the scheme will require compulsory insurance against personal injury caused by accident arising out of and in the course of employment, and against prescribed diseases due to the nature of employment, of all persons who are employed under a contract of service, other than non-manual workers whose remuneration exceeds £1,200 a year.
Subject to this limit, the scheme will also cover civil servants and public and local authority officials but not members of the Defence Forces or the Garda Síochána who are not now covered by workmen's compensation but who are provided for by special schemes. Persons such as taxi drivers employed in plying for hire under a contract of bailment are also included. The scheme will cover employed persons under the age of 16 and over age 70 who are not now insurable under the Social Welfare Acts. However, contributions, to which I will refer later, will not be payable for children under age 16.
The scheme will, therefore apply to persons now covered by the Workmen's Compensation Acts with the addition of persons in non-manual employment earning between £600 and £1,200 a year, and some others including certain share-fishermen. All share-fishermen under contract of service will be covered and, in addition, wholetime share-fishermen whether under contract of service or not.
I should add in reference to the coverage of civil servants that it is intended to modify the provisions of the Act, using regulatory powers conferred by section 12 of the Principal Act, the Social Welfare Act, 1952, so that established civil servants, will be ineligible to receive benefits under the scheme for the first six months following an accident and will only receive reduced benefits thereafter. The sick pay and pension arrangements of such persons will be adjusted in such a way as to ensure that they do not receive less than they would have done if they were fully qualified under the scheme. There will be a corresponding reduction in the insurance contribution payable for such persons.
In regard to the type of accident to be covered, the existing Acts provide compensation for an accident "arising out of and in the course of the employment" and this is to be the condition for benefit under this Bill. It was put to the Commission on Workmen's Compensation that the expression "arising out of and in the course of employment" has occasioned a great volume of expensive litigation, that its meaning is obscure and that the legal interpretation of these words has resulted in inequitable decisions which caused much hardship to workers in the past. As the expression is used in most systems of employment injury throughout the world, including the current industrial injuries legislation in Britain and Northern Ireland, and as its meaning is well settled as a result of decisions over the past 60 years, the Commission recommended that it should be retained.
They were agreed, however, that certain judicial interpretations of the expression have created hardship in some cases, chiefly due to the fact that the onus of proof rests upon the workman, and they accordingly recommend that the general condition of "arising out of and in the course of the employment" should be qualified in various ways so as to give a presumption in favour of the workman in cases where hardship could otherwise result. The suggestions of the Commission in this regard are being implemented in this Bill.
A change of particular importance is that an accident arising in the course of employment shall be deemed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, also to have arisen out of the employment. The onus of proving that an accident arose in the course of the employment will remain on the claimant to benefit, but he will not be obliged, as at present, to show beyond doubt that it arose out of the employment. To achieve this, he would have to establish that it arose because he was doing something which he was employed to do, or because the nature of the employment exposed him to some particular risk.
It is, for example, a common occurrence for skilled workmen to assist labourers to load and unload lorries so as to save time, but a carpenter, say, who helps to unload timber from a lorry from this motive could, under the present Acts, be refused compensation if he were injured in the process. The benefit of any doubt will be given to the workman in such cases in future. Another provision of this nature is to the effect that an accident happening in the course of employment which is due to another person's misconduct, or to the insured person being struck by any object or by lightning will be treated as arising out of his employment if he in no way contributed to the accident by an action not incidental to his employment. A provision of this nature was introduced in Britain and Northern Ireland in 1961 and an example given was of a bus conductor attacked by youths while on duty. It is clearly reasonable that compensation should be provided in such circumstances.
I mentioned in reply to a question in this House on 19th June, 1963, that the question of accidents due to lightning would be considered in connection with amending legislation. Accidents from this cause are specially referred to in the new provision and the position under which compensation could be refused in respect of a road-worker killed by lightning while cleaning out gullies to prevent flooding is, I am happy to say, now to be corrected. Another type of case which is specifically dealt with is that of a worker injured in an accident which occurs while he is travelling to or from his place of work in transport provided by or on behalf of his employer, other than transport operated as part of a public transport service. In the past, such cases have been compensated only where there was a contractual obligation to use the transport provided.
Special provision is also made to cover people injured in real or supposed emergencies on their employers' premises and apprentices injured while in attendance at a technical school or other place for training or instruction. In regard to the latter provision, instances were reported to the Comission on Workmen's Compensation of apprentices who were required by their employers, or by the terms of their contract, to attend technical schools or other place of instruction and who were not compensated for accidents on the ground that they were not working in their employment when the accidents occurred. Benefit will not be refused in respect of accidents which are due to a workman's misconduct. Under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, compensation is not payable where the accident is attributable to the serious and wilful misconduct of the workman unless the injury results in death or in serious and permanent disablement. Consequently, compensation is not with held if the consequences of the accident are serious but penalties are imposed if they are not.
The restriction of benefit to serious injury or death in such cases was dropped in Britain and Northern Ireland when their industrial injuries schemes commenced in 1948, it being pointed out at the time that while this might be justified by some kind of logic it was a source of considerable irritation in practice and its removal would be welcomed, and that in any event, before benefit becomes payable it must be shown that the accident arose out of and in the course of the employment. A somewhat similar change is made in regard to injuries which result from an action performed in contravention of statutory requirements or employer's orders. These will not be excluded so long as the act was done for the purposes of, and in connection with, the employer's trade or business, provided that the accident is such that it would have been regarded as arising out of and in the course of employment if it had not been the result of breach of orders by the workman. Under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, the injuries in such a case would be compensated only where they resulted in death or serious and permanent disablement.
Finally, as a general comment on the new provisions easing the conditions for obtaining employment injury benefits, I would mention that as early as 1925 the International Labour Office, in a survey of workmen's compensation for industrial accidents, stated that "everywhere modern compensation legislation tends increasingly to disregard the legal notion of fault and to take more and more into consideration the economic need for enlarging the sphere of occupational risk", while in a later survey in 1936, that Office stated "the principle of occupational risk ... has gradually replaced throughout the world the principle of employers' liability for industrial accidents as the legal basis for the right to compensation."
Turning to the details of the benefits under the scheme, the initial benefit for a workman meeting with an employment accident will be injury benefit. This will be paid, within the limit of pre-accident earnings, at a weekly rate of 115/- for the first twenty-six weeks of incapacity for work, with increases for adult and child dependants at rates similar to those applying in the case of disability benefit and unemployment benefit under the existing social insurance scheme, that is 40/- a week for an adult dependant, 13/- for each of the first two children and 8/- for each other child. Adult dependants will, as in the case of existing social insurance benefits, be a wife, dependent husband or woman looking after a widower's children, but the children to be treated as dependants will include, as well as all children under age 16, those between 16 and 18 if they are at school, in apprenticeship at low earnings or are invalids.
Married women who are maintained by their husbands will receive a reduced benefit but other married women and all single women and widows will receive the same benefit as men. The present arrangement whereby workmen's compensation is payable for the first three days of incapacity for work when the incapacity lasts for at least two weeks is being continued in the new scheme and injury benefit will, therefore, be paid for the first three days when the recipient has been incapable of work for 12 days, excluding Sundays.
In the majority of work accidents, the workman is able to resume work after a relatively short absence with no continuing ill effects. Consequently, it is expected that in most cases compensation will be by way of injury benefit only. However, where the effects of the accident continue beyond the period of injury benefit the workman will be given a long-term benefit related to the degree of his disablement or loss of faculty, that is to say, a benefit in respect of his loss of health, strength and the power to enjoy life. This will be paid by way of a pension except in cases of relatively minor disablement where a pension, if payable, would be very small and the payment will instead take the form of a lump sum.
This benefit, since it is not dependent on incapacity for work, may be paid to a person who has resumed work and, in this sense, corresponds to the existing provision whereby Workmen's Compensation may be paid to a person who is not incapable of work but has suffered some loss of earnings as a result of a work-accident. The new benefit, however, avoids the anomalies in the existing system under which a man's potential post-accident earnings are taken into account even though he is not receiving such earnings. Any such arrangement of reckoning notional earnings must inhibit a workman from undergoing rehabilitative measures.
The new benefit also has the merit that compensation will be payable where loss of faculty does not entail any loss of earnings but nonetheless leaves the workman under a possible life-long handicap. This will remedy the situation which can arise under the present system whereby, for example, a girl who has facial disfigurement as a result of an accident at work receives no compensation except and in so far as she has suffered loss of earnings. The rate of this benefit for total loss of faculty will correspond to the personal rate of injury benefit, 115/- a week in the case of a man, and proportionate reduced rates will be payable where loss of faculty is less than total.
A person receiving disablement benefit who is incapable of work or who is unemployed may receive disability or unemployment benefit, if he is otherwise qualified therefor, in addition. A special supplement to disablement benefit, unemployability supplement, is provided in the scheme, to ensure that persons who are permanently incapable of work as a result of occupational accident or disease will receive a payment corresponding to disability benefit at maximum rate, with increases for dependants. One important feature of the supplement is that in determining whether a person is permanently incapable of work, the fact that he is earning, or may be able to earn, up to £104 a year will be disregarded.
A further supplement of up to 40/-a week, or 80/- a week in exceptional cases, will be provided for persons who are 100 per cent disabled and are in need of constant attendance, otherwise than in hospital. This supplement will be paid irrespective of whether the attendance given is paid for or not, and, indeed, would be payable where the attendance is given by the workman's wife or other member of his family. It will be seen, therefore, that a man with a wife and two children who is permanently and totally disabled as a result of a work-accident may, subject to a limit of his pre-accident earnings, receive payments amounting to £15 13s. 6d, including the maximum allowance of £4 a week for constant attendance.
As a final word in regard to disablement benefit, provision is made in the scheme for the payment of disablement pension at the 100 per cent rate during any period in which the beneficiary is receiving in-patient hospital treatment required by his injury or loss of faculty, even though his loss of faculty would not otherwise warrant a 100 per cent pension. This provision, taken in conjunction with the payment of all his medical care expenses and entitlement to disability benefit or unemployability supplement will ensure that injured workmen are in no way deterred from undergoing treatment for their condition, including rehabilitation measures where these are suitable.
Dealing now with the benefits payable when a workman dies as a result of an occupational accident or disease, provision is made whereby the widow of such a workman will receive a pension of 95/- a week, together with allowances for children as in the case of injury benefit. A similar pension, with allowances for children, will be paid to a dependent widower of a woman who dies as a result of an employment accident or disease. To qualify for a pension the widower must be permanently incapable of self-support by reason of physical or mental infirmity. If he is not permanently incapable of self-support but was dependent on his wife at her death, he will receive a gratuity of £247, the equivalent of one year's pension. A pension granted to a widow will, as in the case of a widow's pension under the existing Social Welfare Acts, cease on her re-marriage. Pensions at the rate of 24/- a week will be payable to the dependent parents of a workman who dies as a result of a work-accident. If both parents were dependent, i.e. wholly or mainly maintained, two pensions will be paid. An orphan's pension of 47/6d a week will be granted in respect of an orphaned child or step-child of the workman and also for any orphaned child who was dependent on the workman at his death.
A funeral grant of £50 will be payable to the legal personal representative of the deceased but if there is no next-of-kin the £50 or a lesser sum if the funeral expenses are less than £50, will be paid to any person who has paid or is due the funeral expenses.
In addition to the benefits which I have outlined, injured workmen, or their dependants in fatal cases, will be entitled to any reasonable and necessary medical expenses incurred by a workman as a result of a work-accident. Under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, the only payment provided in respect of the medical expenses of an injured workman is a sum of up to £5 which a court may direct an employer to pay in addition to the compensation for which he is liable. The Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention, 1952, of the International Labour Organisation, requires that an employment injury benefit scheme should provide for free medical care, comprising, briefly, medical, surgical and pharmaceutical aid, including hospitalisation, and the supply and renewal of artificial limbs and surgical appliances.
As the Commission on Workmen's Compensation points out, a convention of this nature represents the general agreement of informed world opinion, and, indeed many countries elsewhere have adopted these standards of medical care in whole or in part. Our present system of workmen's compensation, under which not more than £5 is provided for medical expenses, does not by any means reach those standards and the proposals for the payment of medical expenses in this Bill will remove this serious deficiency in the existing system. Injured workmen will, as insured persons under the Social Welfare Acts, be eligible for the benefits provided under the Health Acts and Mental Treatment Acts and for treatment benefit under the Social Welfare Acts.
Unless, however, they are in the lower income group they will not be eligible under the Health or Mental Treatment Acts for general practitioner services and medicines or appliances supplied outside hospital, and they will be liable for charges of up to 10/- a day for impatient hospital treatment, 7/6d for an x-ray or 2/6d for any other treatment as a hospital outpatient. The cost to the injured workman of all of these services will be met under the new scheme. The cost will, of course, be limited to that which arises after the services provided under the Health Acts, Mental Treatment Acts or by way of treatment benefit under the Social Welfare Acts have been fully availed of.
As Deputies are aware, compensation is at present payable in respect of certain industrial diseases which are scheduled under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. The new scheme will also apply to diseases which are due to the nature of a person's employment, and provision is made for the making of regulations under which the diseases to be covered will be prescribed and the provisions of the scheme will be adapted to these special cases. The provisions dealing with the coverage of diseases under the existing Acts were examined by the Commission on Workmen's Compensation who found them to be too rigid. They, therefore, recommended adoption of provision in the Workmen's Compensation Acts similar to that now made in this scheme. The extent to which diseases will be covered by the scheme will be a continuing process and the list will, from time to time, be added to as our pattern of industry changes and as new diseases manifest themselves.
The Department of Health will, of course, be consulted in regard to the appropriations or otherwise of prescribing a particular disease. I should mention that it is intended to cover from the outset all the diseases at present scheduled under the Workmen's Compensation Acts with certain additions. In particular, the present coverage in respect of pneumoconiosis which is limited to coal mining or the search for coal will be extended so as to apply to any mining operation. A further addition of particular interest to farm workers will be the disease known as Weil's disease. Certain other diseases which are required to be covered by International Convention but which are not now covered by the Workmen's Compensation Acts will also receive immediate consideration.
The Workmen's Compensation Acts will be repealed as from the appointed day but employers will continue to be liable to pay compensation under those Acts in respect of accidents which occurred or diseases which were contracted before that date. The position of workmen receiving compensation under the existing Acts and who therefore do not come within the ambit of the new scheme has been carefully considered and it has been decided that some increase should be provided in this Bill. To increase the maximum weekly amount payable under the Workmen's Compensation Acts would increase the existing liabilities of individual employers or their insurance companies and it is proposed instead that any increases granted will be met from the contributions by the general body of employers to the Occupational Injuries Fund set up for this scheme.
Regulations to be made under the Bill will enable workmen's compensation recipients, who are permanently incapable of work or of earning more than £104 a year, to receive the unemployability supplement, with additions for adult and child dependants, which will be provided to a disablement pensioner in similar circumstances. The regulations will also give recipients of workmen's compensation who are 100 per cent disabled the same right to a constant attendance allowance of up to 40/- a week, or 80/- a week if exceptionally severely disabled, as recipients of 100 per cent disablement pension.
It is also intended to amend the regulations made under the Social Welfare Acts for payment of disability benefit with workmen's compensation so that concurrent payment of both benefits will be possible in cases where the supplement to which I have just referred is not payable. As Deputies are aware, disability benefit is not now payable with workmen's compensation except to the extent that such benefit exceeds the compensation. Since the standard rate of disability benefit for a man and wife will, from January next, be 92/6d, this means that a married man in receipt of workmen's compensation will, from the appointed day, be eligible to receive an increase of £4. 10. 0d a week if he is incapable of work or, being permanently so incapable, of earning more than £104 a year, and up to £8. 10. 0. if he is in need of constant attendance, subject to the limitation that overall payments will not exceed pre-accident earnings.
The persons who will be eligible to receive these additional payments are those who were at any time on or after 1st October, 1965, entitled to weekly payments of workmen's compensation.
I now pass on to the provision in the Bill which limits the total amount which may be paid by way of benefits, including any increases, in non-fatal cases to the amount of the workman's pre-accident earnings. Earnings for this purpose will be those at the time of the accident in the employment in which the accident occurred and will include perquisites or wages in kind, such as meals supplied to agricultural workers. Overtime payments will be excluded but where a person was working part-time, or was on short time, his earnings will be made up to the amount payable for a full normal working week in his employment. If his employer has nobody employed full-time at the same work the earnings of another worker in similar employment in the same district may be taken into account in calculating the earnings.
Acceptance of pre-accident earnings as the earnings, disregarding over-time or short-time, at the time of the accident rather than, as in the Workmen's Compensation Acts, the average earnings received over a period immediately before the accident follows on a detailed examination of the existing provision by the Workmen's Compensation Commission. The Commission came to the conclusion that in arriving at earnings greater weight should be attached to the fact that it was while the workman was in the service of a particular employer, and engaged on the particular work required by that employer, that he suffered injury, and accordingly it is more equitable and simpler to relate compensation to the weekly rate of wages payable at the time of the accident by that employer. No justification was seen for taking a rate greater or smaller than that actually in payment at the time of the accident by averaging that rate with rates paid by other employers for other work. No reduction on account of earnings will be made in the gratuities which will be payable where disablement is less than 20 per cent and a minimum payment, equivalent to the amount payable by way of pension for disablement of 20 per cent, will be made in all injury benefit and disablement pension cases.
As disablement pension, including any increase for dependants, unemployability or constant attendance, will be liable to reduction because of pre-accident earnings, provision is also made that disablement pension may be reduced where the amount of the pension, together with any disability benefit, unemployment benefit or unemployment assistance payable, is greater than the pre-accident earnings. There is also provision for review of the reduced amount of pension payable, in any case where the wages in the employment have increased since the date of the accident or where an apprentice or other young person would, were it not for the accident, have reached full adult wages.
Since a limitation by reference to earnings is to be placed on the amount of benefits payable to injured workmen for future accidents it is right that a similar limitation should also be applied to the weekly amounts which will be payable under this scheme by way of any supplement to workmen's compensation in respect of unemployability or constant attendance. Provision is accordingly included for a reduction of a person's weekly payment under the scheme if such payment along with his weekly payment of workmen's compensation would exceed the weekly earnings for the time being in the employment in which the accident occurred or the disease was contracted. A similar limitation will be applied in relation to disability benefit payable with workmen's compensation under the regulations, to which I have already referred, which will permit full payment of that benefit with workmen's compensation.
The new scheme will be administered by using the existing machinery in my Department for the determination of claims to social welfare benefits and by extending such administrative machinery where necessary. Claims for benefit will need to be supported by confirmation from the employer as to the circumstances of the accident or disease, and where the benefit claim is based on incapacity for work, periodic medical evidence will be required as in the case of claims to disability benefit under the Social Welfare Acts at present. Claims will be decided by deciding officers, who will refer questions of a medical nature, in particular questions regarding degrees of disablement, to medical referees in my Department. Specialist medical advice will be obtained where this is considered necessary.
A claimant will have a right of appeal against the decision of a deciding officer except in regard to short-term provisional assessments of disablement which of their nature are tentative and must be reviewed in any event. Appeals will be decided by appeals officers of my Department who may obtain further specialist advice on medical questions. Decisions by appeals officers on benefit claims will, as in the case of existing social welfare benefits, be final, subject to review only if new information as to the facts of the case comes to light or if there has been a change of circumstances which would warrant a revision of the decision. Any question of insurability will be determined by a deciding officer and there will be a right of appeal to an appeals officer with a further right of appeal to the High Court on a question of law.
To ensure that the circumstances of accidents will be recorded as early as possible after their occurrence and to facilitate the making of claims, provision is made for the giving of notice by workers to their employers of accidents which may give rise to claims, and for reports by employers of such accidents. There will also be arrangements whereby a workman who meets with an accident may seek a declaration that the accident arose out of and in the course of insurable employment, even if he is not immediately incapacitated or disabled, so that in the event of his being incapacitated or disabled in the future his right to benefit will be secured. Employers will also be required to furnish any information required for the purpose of deciding any claim, or application for declaration such as I have just mentioned.
The provision for disqualifying a person for receipt of injury benefit or disablement benefit for a period of up to six weeks for failure, without a good reason, to undergo medical examination or treatment or to observe rules of behaviour, is on similar lines to that already provided under the Social Welfare Acts in relation to disability benefit.
The duty of training disabled persons for employment suitable to their condition of health and for the making of arrangements with employers for placing disabled persons in suitable employment is, under the Health Acts, vested in local health authorities. Persons in receipt of occupational injuries benefits will be encouraged to avail themselves of these and any other rehabilitation services, and provision has been made in the Bill for a grant to be made out of the Occupational Injuries Fund, if necessary, towards the cost. Furthermore, recipients of disablement benefit receiving rehabilitation treatment as inpatients will be entitled to pension at the full 100 per cent, rate, with increases for dependants, and will be eligible to receive disability benefit or unemployability supplement.
With regard to the provision enabling financial assistance to be given to persons engaged on research into the causes and prevention of occupational accidents and diseases, and indeed for the Minister himself to employ persons to carry out such research, my Department will be very much concerned with the question of safety measures for all persons who will be covered by the scheme, in particular those whose safe conditions of working are not the specific concern of any Department at present. Comprehensive statistics of the incidence of occupational accidents and diseases do not exist at present and the experience of claims under the Bill and the information regarding accidents and diseases given therein will provide a new and very valuable basis on which to direct lines of inquiry into accident and disease prevention. The provision will also enable research to be carried out for the purpose of determining whether particular diseases, or injuries not caused by accident, should be prescribed for the purposes of the scheme.
I referred earlier to the cost of the scheme. I will deal now with the method of providing the funds to meet such cost. The scheme in general applies only to accidents occuring or diseases developing on or after the appointed day, although some provision is made for increases for existing workmen's compensation cases. The benefits include long-term payments by way of disablement pension and supplements, and survivors pensions. Yearly expenditure on benefits will, therefore, increase progressively over a considerable period of years until stability is reached.
The rates of contributions have been determined on a funded basis with the purpose of achieving an ultimate position of financial stability in which annual income, allowing for interest accruing from excess contributions in the earlier years, and outgo will balance. This means that the increased expenditure arising in later years from the growth in the number of pensions and supplements in payment will be met without the necessity of increasing the rates of contributions now provided. These are 2s. 1d for male employees and 1s. 6d for female employees and will, it is estimated, cover all the costs arising from the scheme. These are: the expenditure on occupational injuries benefits, payments in respect of medical care, payment of disability benefit with disablement benefit, the cost of supplements to workmen's compensation payments, including disability benefit paid with such compensation, payments towards rehabilitation and research, and the cost of administration. The contributions will be payable by employers.
Under the existing workmen's compensation scheme, employers are liable to pay the compensation provided under the Acts for injured workmen, and if they insure against this risk they must bear the full cost of the insurance. The contributions payable in future will form part of the overall social insurance contribution except where the person is insured for occupational injuries purposes only, e.g. persons over age 70. Contributions will not be payable for persons under the age of 16 and their title to injury benefit will be limited by regulations.
All contributions collected will be paid into a new fund, the Occupational Injuries Fund, which will meet all payments to be made under the scheme. There is provision for actuarial reviews at five-yearly intervals so as to ensure that the contributions are adequate to keep the Fund solvent at all times. As payments, especially payments to recipients of workmen's compensation, may have to be met in the early stages before sufficient contributions are paid into the Fund, there is also provision for borrowing from the Exchequer during the first two years of the scheme.
I have mentioned that disablement benefit, which is payable in respect of loss of faculty, may be paid along with any other benefit under the Social Welfare Acts, e.g., disability benefit. Disability benefit, which is a payment in respect of incapacity for work, will not, however, be paid concurrently with injury benefit or with unemployability supplement, which are also payable for incapacity, and as such, cover the same contingency. Similarly a widow's or orphan's pension under the existing Acts will not be paid concurrently with a widow's or orphan's pension under this scheme. These and other provisions necessary to ensure that there will not be double payment for the same contingency will be made in overlapping benefits regulations under the existing Social Welfare Acts.
Finally, there is a very important feature of compensation for employment accidents and diseases which remains to be dealt with. I refer to the question of damages which may be claimed by an injured person from a wrongdoer. This right of taking an action for damages in respect of a wrong is not, of course, confined to employment injury but this is the only aspect which arises in this Bill. At present if a workman is injured in circumstances which would give him a title to compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Acts and the circumstances are also such that he would have a claim for damages against his employer or a third party, based on negligence, he may be paid the compensation or the damages but not both. If he has accepted workmen's compensation he may make his claim at common law as well, but if the claim for damages succeeds any amount paid by way of workmen's compensation is recoverable by the employer.
It is not proposed to remove a person's existing right to claim damages under the Civil Liability Acts, 1961 and 1964, or otherwise at common law, in respect of injuries caused by the negligence of an employer or a third party, nor is it proposed that benefits under this Bill will be reduced as a result of any award of such damages. The Commission on Workmen's Compensation accepted in relation to such cases of double entitlement to benefit and damages that the Fund would not be relieved but that the common law damages would be limited to any margin by which the common law judgement exceeds the estimated capital value of the benefits received and to be received under the Occupational Injuries Scheme.
It is worth nothing in this connection that, even with the set-off of the benefits against damages, the Commission estimated that the cost of insurance by employers against common law damages only could increase by between £100,000 and £215,000 following the introduction of a social insurance occupational injuries scheme. To avoid a double payment to workmen by way of damages and benefit, and consequently a double charge on employers generally, it is provided in the Bill that the amount of injury benefit or disablement benefit, disregarding any increase for constant attendance but including all other increases, payable for five years from the time when the cause of action arises will be taken into account in an assessment of damages for any loss of earnings or profits accruing from the injuries.
The set-off is related only to damages for loss of earnings or profits and will not therefore affect damages awarded under other headings, such as pain and suffering, which are not, strictly speaking, reckoned in the determination of benefits. The period over which the value of benefits is to be calculated is limited to five years because, as the explanatory memorandum points out, it would generally be impracticable for a court or jury to estimate these benefits over a longer period. The provision made in the Bill in regard to reducing common law damages is similar to that now operating in Britain and Northern Ireland, except that, under their arrangements, workers share in the financing of the industrial injuries scheme and consequently only one half of the benefits received in the first five years is set off against damages. The provision for reducing damages does not apply, except in regard to funeral expenses, to damages awarded to dependants of persons fatally injured. It is considered right that in such cases, which are few in number, the widow or other dependant should receive the pension provided under the scheme and the common-law lump sum as well. A widow's pension under the existing Acts is disregarded in the assessment of common law damages.
Regard has been had in the preparation of this Bill to the most modern international concepts in the matter of compensation for employment injury. I have already referred to the requirements of the International Labour Organisation's Minimum Standards Convention of 1952 in regard to medical care but a more comprehensive measure was adopted by that Organisation only last year—the Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964. This Convention revised and considerably raised the standards of a number of pre-war Conventions, many of the provisions of which had been found by the International Labour Organisation to correspond no longer to the concepts and practices which have evolved since they were adopted. This country had not reached the position of being able to comply with even the lower standards provided for in the earlier Conventions. Compliance with the standards set by the new Convention, which has been achieved in this scheme, will mean that this country has made a significant step forward in the field of social security and be, for the first time, in the forefront of those countries which have highly developed systems of insurance against occupational injury and disease.
As a final word, I should mention that this Bill has been drafted by way of amendment of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, the basic social insurance Act. This will enable the new benefits to be operated within the existing machinery and obviates duplication of the general provisions required to deal with, for example, decisions on claims, appeals, overlapping benefits, etc.
The Bill represents a major advance in our social services, a completely new method of dealing with employment injury, and a greatly improved system of recompense for those injured while engaged not only in making their own livelihood but in contributing to the national economy.
As the Commission on Workmen's Compensation pointed out, however, it has long been recognised that compensation is not to be measured solely by cash and the restoration of the injured workman to full working capacity or to the maximum fitness that any residual disablement would allow is just as important, if not more so. This latter objective was constantly in mind in preparing this Bill. While providing substantially better cash benefits, provisions, such as now exist, which could inhibit a workman's rehabilitation have been studiously avoided. On the contrary, many provisions designed to assist and encourage medical treatment and rehabilitation have, as I have already shown, been specifically included.
I have, I think, given a reasonable summary of the provisions of the Bill, and I trust that those Deputies who have been pressing for the introduction of an earlier Bill will accept that it was worthwhile to examine methodically and thoroughly all aspects of the problem of employment injury and disease rather than precipitately introduce a measure which would be less satisfactory or comprehensive than the present Bill, which I now commend for the approval of the House.