The Senator differentiates between "categorical" and "definite." He must have been in touch with some of the insurance satraps. I think that Senator O'Neill must have had direct information from some insurance society. These societies soon must cater for the people they insure. We are told that there is very little insurance business here. Why, in exception to all other trades, does increased insurance business, instead of resulting in a lessening of costs, lead to an increase of premiums? Take the recent example of compulsory insurance for motor-car owners. Do you find the insurance companies, because they have a monopoly of a trade, lessening their premiums to meet a greater income from universal business? Not at all. There is instead an increase of 25 per cent.—and this, why? Because everyone has to go to them to be insured. We were told by a banker in this House some years ago that the reason why Ireland had to pay 1 per cent more for money than people had to pay in England was because there was not enough business here. In other words, because we were too solvent and, therefore, less to be trusted! But now when we have an increased volume of business there is yet to be an increase in the charges. This is contradictory. There is direct and sinister connection between insurance companies and banks, and it is this, that when the banks invest in insurance companies they can count on about 13 per cent. of a return for their money. Therefore, they are not inclined to lend capital to struggling industrialists at 5, 6 or 7 per cent. The insurance company, we are told, may throw the charge back on industry. They are one of the greatest brakes and preventatives of industries. When it is only a charge of 2/6 a head it should be an easy thing for the Government to tell the insurance companies that they cannot go beyond that. They should even reduce it in view of their increased business. They have insured those employees up to the present for 2/6 a head even though medical fees might reach an unlimited award. In the early days there was a sort of a ramp in regard to compensation claims. Some doctors who had not a high sense of ethics made a point of exploiting an accident. Certain solicitors did it too. An accident, say, at Ranelagh, might have meant a stampede of doctors from Merrion Square—first aid! But now it is a matter for legislation to prevent a ramp of insurance charges beyond the ordinary rates that have hitherto obtained.
As I said before, so many of these cases are settled out of court, that as regards the doctors' fees there is about a four to one chance of recovery. It is only the odd case that comes into court, or where the man is so injured that he has had to go to the nearest hospital. The doctor may be up with him all night and his condition may be a matter of concern to the hospital staff. That presumably is to pass without any remuneration, not from the goodwill of the public and not from the Government, but from these insurance companies. I think it is a monstrous thing that we should be at the mercy of statistics which are, so far as we know, proprietary and not open to the public. When you have a dispute, the insurance company will send down a person who will divulge certain information privately to a county councillor or public body or harbour commissioner, but not to the public. They will only divulge certain facts and figures in the absence of the Press. Why should there be anything hidden about a public compulsory or national thing like insurance? Why all the hugger-mugger?
We all know that the Hospital Sweep was not very difficult to institute, because after all it was only an extension of an insurance system, the only difference being that when you win a prize in the sweep you get your money, whereas if you win in the case of insurance you do not always get your money if you are exempt from criminal negligence. Here is a case in point which I would ask the Minister to take note of, because it has not yet been legislated for. I had the misfortune when motoring from Dublin to Bray, 20 or 21 years ago, to run over a child. My man happened to kill the child. The circumstances were such that it was an absolutely unavoidable accident. Had my car been stationary the accident would have occurred. The accident happened at Donnybrook. The father of the child came to me and said that I had killed his son. I said that I was not going to be a party to any conspiracy of any insurance company and I told him that I was well insured. The case was thrown out of court because it was shown that the accident was nobody's fault. In other words, my driver was a sober and careful man. Had he been drunk and it was found by the court that he was criminally negligent the insurance company might have had to pay up to £3,000 or £4,000. As it was, I paid all that I could afford. When I went to the insurance company and pointed out the hardship of the case— that I held an "accident" insurance and that this was a pure accident—I was told that if I wished to pay "alms" to the father, I could do so out of my own pocket! Nothing, of course, could compensate the father in terms of money for the loss of his child. I was told by the insurance company "if you like to give alms you can do so, but we do not cover that kind of thing." It is high time, I think, that the workers of this country should not be put at the mercy of people who can look on the payment of compensation when there is loss of life as "alms giving!"
Senator Counihan talked about farm labourers who get a red ticket. He knows a lot about the kind of treatment they are liable to on a red ticket. I know the case of a mountainy man who came from Senator Counihan's district and suffered from a peculiar sickness. For three days neither the doctor nor anybody else could diagnose his disease. In fact, the red ticket was turning blue—like litmus paper. The priest came to him and said to him: "If you do not tell me what is wrong with you, I will not give you absolution." After a long, reluctant, amorous delay, he said: "Father, I am in love." I think the House ought to bear in mind that we have been fairly met by the Minister. Particularly when we know that it is only in one case in four that the doctor has a chance of recovering or claiming fees.