I have to thank you, A Chathaoirligh, and the House for giving me an opportunity to make a statement with regard to the amendments that I propose to make in this Emergency Powers Order, dealing with compensation for personal injuries.
Senators will remember that when, before Christmas, this matter was before the Seanad, I undertook to reconsider the provisions of the personal injuries scheme, having regard to the views expressed in the course of the discussion here. I have reviewed the provisions of the order and have gone into the criticisms offered in this House. I have tried, in so far as it was possible for me to do, to meet—I think I have met to a not inconsiderable extent—the principal, but not all, of the criticisms which were offered. Everybody will agree that it is not possible to frame any estimate of the total cost of compensation with which the Exchequer may be faced as a result of the present emergency.
However, I have decided, in the light of the representations made as to the general inadequacy, in present circumstances, of compensation based almost entirely on the Workmen's Compensation Act scale, at any rate where there are dependents, to take some measure of risk and to revise the scheme to provide for allowances in respect of the dependents of disabled earners and also for allowances instead of lump sums in fatal cases, where the dependency is total or almost entirely so. I do not propose to make awards of compensation in respect of the dependents of deceased non-earners unless necessitous circumstances are established. As regards partial dependency, which is, of course, a matter of degree, and in many cases might be trifling. I could not undertake to pay continuing allowances, and I propose that partial dependency in fatal cases shall be dealt with on a lump sum basis where the merits of the case are established, and that any such grants shall be measured by Workmen's Compensation Act standards. I cannot undertake to make payments in respect of persons who have been only partially dependent on an injured person who is himself in receipt of compensation. I have arranged for the preparation of a new order accordingly.
As regards categories of dependents, I propose to adhere to members of the injured or deceased person's family as defined in Part III of the original scheme, that is, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, step-father, stepmother, son, daughter, grandson, grand-daughter, stepson, step-daughter, brother, sister, half-brother and half-sister, a pretty wide circle. In addition, to meet the plea put forward by Senator Hayes on behalf of the adopted child, I propose to include a child in respect of whom the injured or deceased person had placed himself or herself in loco parentis. Instead of adhering to the limit of 15 years applicable to juvenile dependency laid down in the Workmen's Compensation Act, I have decided that allowances in respect of children will be payable up to the age of 18 years unless they are prevented by physical or mental infirmity from supporting themselves, when they will continue to be payable up to the age of 70 years.
I propose also in the case of disablement awards to provide for an allowance for the housekeeper of a widower or widow residing with him or her to look after the dependents. Senator Hayes put in a plea also for dependent aunts or uncles. I am afraid I cannot meet him in this; I think I have gone as far as could reasonably be expected in the matter of providing for dependents having regard to the unlimited liability we are undertaking. Of course if an aunt were called in she would be entitled to the allowance set out in the case of a housekeeper looking after dependents.
With regard to the rates of allowances, the suggestion was made that regard should be had to earning capacity. In considering the suggestion it has to be borne in mind that corresponding compensation schemes have to be provided for members of the A.R.P., the Local Defence Force and the Local Security Force services, and it will be appreciated that it would be difficult—indeed it would be practically out of the question—to frame schemes covering organisations comprising all classes of society but rendering common services to the State which would have the effect of providing compensation for the members by reference to their own widely varying incomes. Apart altogether from this aspect of the matter, it is not possible to ignore the potential burden upon the State of compensation payments. The fact is that we do not know where we stand in the matter of compensation. We have so far been fortunate in that incidents giving rise to claims have been few, but the future is highly uncertain, and it is incumbent upon the Minister for Finance, so far as is in his power, to proceed on the basis of what the State can reasonably be expected to afford, should further incidents occur.
We cannot, moreover, ignore the possibility that in spite of all our efforts to maintain our neutrality we may find ourselves embroiled in the war, with a resultant very heavy bill for compensation not only in respect of personal injuries, but also in respect of property, and it may be taken that if we were to adopt now, because of the fewness of bombing and other incidents of the kind, somewhat liberal schemes of compensation in which due allowance for earning capacity was made, it would be impossible to introduce less liberal schemes later, merely because a new set of circumstances had arisen. In short, as Minister for Finance, I cannot ignore the contingency of damage to property and of death and injury, on a wholesale scale, resulting in an enormous total liability for compensation.
While British policy in the matter of compensation need not perhaps be regarded as particularly relevant to what we may elect to do here—though one or two speakers here and one speaker in the Dáil thought that we ought to have British rates of compensation in mind in drafting our own scheme—it is worthy of note as bearing on the question of earning capacity that the British personal injuries scheme for civilians, which covers also members of civil defence organisations, provides that
"The degree of disablement caused to a person by a qualifying injury... shall be assessed by making a comparison between the condition of disablement caused to that person by that injury... and the condition of a normal healthy person of the same age and sex without taking into account the earning capacity of the disabled person in his own or in any other specific trade or occupation."
I have, therefore, felt constrained, while making additional provision for dependents, to adhere, in the case of disabled men or women who are earners, to the maximum of 30/- a week provided for in the original scheme. This is the Workmen's Compensation Act maximum and I am aware that some Seanadóirí do not view it with favour, but I am satisfied that I could not, the situation being so uncertain as it is, with prudence provide for a more liberal rate where there are no dependents. For earners under 18 years of age the maximum rate will be 15/- a week. For non-earners over 18 years of age the maximum rate will be 18/- a week, and for non-earners under 18 years of age 9/- a week. As regards the dependents of disabled persons, I propose that allowances shall be paid at the following maximum rates:—
In respect of dependent wife or husband or in respect of any female person residing with a widow or widower for the purpose of having the care of his children—7/6 a week.
In respect of each dependent other than husband or wife—4/- a week.
Disablement allowances will be reducible by reference to the percentage degree of disability.
In the case of fatal injuries I propose allowances as follows:—
For a widow over 45 years of age or, if under that age, in receipt of an allowance in respect of a dependent, or incapable of earning—18/- a week.
For a widow under 45 years of age not in receipt of an allowance in respect of a dependent and capable of earning—12/6 a week.
For a widower dependent on deceased wife and incapable of earning—18/- a week.
In respect of dependents while living with a widow or widower 5/- a week and after the death of the widow or widower—7/6 a week.
For dependents of an unmarried man or widower or of an unmarried woman or widow—7/6 a week.
The widow's allowance would cease on re-marriage and an allowance in respect of any other female dependent would cease on marriage.
Various other points regarding the scheme were raised in the last debate, and, as promised, I have looked further into the issues raised. In the light of the views expressed in the course of discussion regarding possible payments by employers in respect of disabled persons, I have decided that any such payments shall be disregarded in computing the amount of compensation to be paid under the scheme, save, of course, in so far as persons remunerated from public moneys are concerned, where, under the terms of their employment, special arrangements in regard to injury pay may be applied.
With regard to the point raised by Senator Hayes and Senator Douglas on article 8 (5) of the original scheme, it is now intended to regard any injured child up to the age of 18 who is not an earner as a non-earner for the purposes of the scheme and disablement allowance will therefore be payable in respect of young children. Senator Hayes drew attention also to article 21 of the scheme, which provided for the withholding of grants in respect of dependents who died before an award was made. That article was based on an exactly corresponding provision in Section 18 (4) of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1934, but as I have now decided to depart from the lines of that Act in relation to awards to dependents in fatal cases the question of retaining article 21 no longer arises.
As regards article 22, which appeared to Senator Hayes to suggest that the medical attendants and the undertaker would share all the compensation payable, in respect of a person who leaves no dependents, I would point out that the compensation payable in such a case consists only of a lump sum to cover the reasonable expenses of medical attendance and burial.
Senator Foran urged that disabled persons entitled to National Health Insurance benefit should be entitled to draw both benefit and the appropriate rate of compensation in full. I cannot agree to an arrangement which, in effect, would be tantamount to duplicate payments in respect of the same injury. It must be remembered that the State also contributes substantially to the cost of National Health Insurance, and having regard to the potential burden of compensation upon the Exchequer, I think the State is reasonably entitled to have regard to the payments made from a State-aided fund in respect of an injury, and that we shall be dealing not inequitably by such persons in providing that where Health Insurance benefits are lower than the appropriate rate of compensation, the difference shall be made up out of compensation moneys.
Exception was taken in the course of the last discussion to article 29 of the scheme, which provides for the deduction from awards of compensation of moneys due to the State. It is hardly necessary to amplify what I said on that occasion. The State has to find the money for the needs of the country, including the social services and including the cost of this scheme of compensation, where it cannot be recovered from Governments, and it is not unreasonable that where moneys required for these needs and services are properly due they should be collected.
Article 36 of the scheme was the subject of criticism as being directed in effect to giving the Minister a free hand to refuse compensation regardless of reasonable entitlement. That is certainly not the intention of the article. While there is provision in Article 32 for forfeiture of an award on conviction, that article deals with awards which have actually been made. Claims may, however, be made based on false statements and it was deemed desirable to take discretionary power to refuse awards in cases of the kind without necessarily adopting the extreme measure of having the persons concerned convicted of an offence and made liable to court penalties. However, the article can no doubt be redrafted in a form which will make the intention more clear.
Allied to the point raised regarding Article 36 was the suggestion that it would have been desirable that the provisions of the compensation scheme should have been embodied in a statute. A statute is, however, hardly appropriate to a scheme of the kind. It is almost inevitable that in the course of administration, particularly should incidents occur which would lead to claims on a wholesale scale, amendments, possibly of a trifling nature, will from time to time be found necessary to meet cases of a kind which cannot now readily be foreseen, and it would be nothing short of absurd if the machinery of amending statutes had to be put in motion to secure these amendments. It is a further consideration that corresponding schemes have also to be made in respect of the Local Defence Force and the Local Security Force, bodies the establishment and regulation of which is provided for, not by statute, but by Emergency Order. To embody the schemes for such forces in a statute would, I think, be quite inappropriate. I need only say that the scheme, which is embodied in a statutory order, will like other similar schemes have all the force of a statute, and any person properly entitled to the compensation provided for in the scheme will be granted that compensation.
Senator Douglas asked on what basis we should make claims against another Government where responsibility had been brought home to that Government for injury to our citizens. Our citizens are clearly entitled to make such claims as they consider proper, and we shall do what we can to secure the utmost measure of compensation from the Government concerned. It may, perhaps, be argued that where a belligerent Government has accepted responsibility there should be no need to measure compensation by standards adapted to our own purse, but we are faced with the fact that it has not been possible in all past cases to secure foreign acceptance of responsibility, and it might not be possible in all, or in any cases which might occur in future. The State has undertaken initially to see that compensation, whether recoverable or not, will be paid, and discrimination in the matter of initial payments as between "recoverable" and "non-recoverable" cases could not be justified. We must necessarily proceed on the basis that the liability may have to be borne finally by the Exchequer.
I took the liberty of suggesting through you, Sir, that I might be given permission to make this statement and, as it involves a number of figures and details that one could not expect the members of the Seanad to grasp immediately, that, if the Seanad so desired, I might make the statement to-day and the Seanad could, in its discretion, fix another date later on for the full discussion of the proposed amendments.
