Senator Hawkins opened with criticism of this Bill, a very artificial criticism, of course, as the Senator almost felt himself. If he were not the "good companion" that I believe him to be, I might make serious comments and, perhaps, harsh comments on the criticism which he attempted to offer. May I, however, compliment the Senator on making a brave show with very poor material in an effort to write down what he must know in his heart as a citizen, even though he may not pretend to know it as a Fianna Fáil Senator, is a good Bill?
Let us get the background of this whole business. In 1934 an Act was passed by the Fianna Fáil Government, and from 1934 until 1943 nothing was done to increase the compensation payable to insured workmen. In fact, when the Fianna Fáil Government passed the 1934 Act, the maximum compensation up to then payable to an insured workman was 35/- per week. The Fianna Fáil Government in the 1934 Workmen's Compensation Act reduced the maximum from 35/- to 30/- per week in the case of total incapacity. Therefore, the Fianna Fáil Government, having started out in 1934 to bring down the ceiling of compensation from 35/- to 30/-, did nothing from then until 1943, when, by pressure of economic circumstances, they stepped up the compensation from a maximum of 30/- per week to a maximum of 37/6 per week. In other words, they provided for an increase in weekly compensation by 25 per cent. That is where Fianna Fáil left workmen's compensation benefits between 1934 and December, 1938. Fianna Fáil stepped up workmen's compensation benefits by 25 per cent., but this Bill is doing one simple job and it is stepping up the compensation, not by 25 per cent. but by 66 per cent. If you look at the Bill from the point of view of the injured workman, whether he meets with an accident in the future or whether he has met with an accident in the past, I think it is doing a very good job, and I think that, privately, Senator Hawkins would agree with that, although he made a pretty brave show this afternoon with very poor material, and it was obvious that he had not his heart in the case he was trying to make.
Senator Hawkins was in a very difficult role this evening and it is always a difficult role for anybody in a similar position to be on both sides of the fence at the same time. Senator Hawkins said "it should be better" and then he put a barricade before that pious aspiration of his saying "What is the cost of this to the farmer?" The whole background of workmen's compensation is that the workman does not insure himself under the Workmen's Compensation Act. The traditional practice here and in Britain has been that the employer is compelled to insure his injured workman. If you wanted to take the line that the injured workman is entitled to full pay when he is injured, well and good; you can do it and we can frame legislation accordingly, but you cannot suggest that you are entitled at the same time to say, "What about the cost to the man who pays?" That was Senator Hawkins' particularly difficult role this evening. He showed, however, a skill which at times I admired, during the course of his speech. He managed for a short time, though rather uneasily, to ride both horses, but I think he was very glad when he was on the ground of reality again. Senator Hawkins said that the compensation should be better. Maybe it should, but is this a fair point to put to Senator Hawkins in a vocational Seanad? Whatever the difficulties of workmen's compensation have been—and they have been bad for 14 years and particularly bad since 1939—nobody as far as I know, prevented the last Government from stepping up the rates of benefit, nor was the legislative programme terribly crowded because I think we passed Bills regulating the netting of immature fish and regulating tidal waters under the Fianna Fáil Government and heaven knows if Senator Hawkins broached the stepping up of the rates of workmen's compensation I have a shrewd suspicion that his influence in the Fianna Fáil Party is such that the injured workmen's wives and children would at least take precedence over the regulating of tidal waters or the netting of immature fish.
I do not want to make any political point about that at all, but I feel sure that Senator Hawkins is, in fact, behind this Bill and that in yester years or, in fact, in yester months he would be very glad to come in here and say: "This is another milestone on the road to a Fianna Fáil El Dorado." I sympathise with the Deputy in not being able to say that, but I say to him that the El Dorado, as far as it is humanly possible for ordinary mortals on this earth, will be accomplished much more quickly now, as this Bill fairly indicates.
The point has been made by some Senators that we should pay a special rate of benefit to an injured workman who is married and has children compared with the rate paid to the injured workman who is unmarried. Frankly, I am attracted to a scheme of that kind and I have spent a good deal of time examining the matter. I think, however, that it must be examined closely and no examination of the problem can be complete without a knowledge of the imperfections of our present workman's compensation. Our present workmen's compensation code enables an injured workman to recover benefit against an employer but it does not compel an employer to insure, with the result that a person may employ another to do some work for him and if the person employed meets with an accident he can sue the employer. The employer is not compelled to insure, with the result that the employed person must get what he can against whatever estate his employer has with all the possible financial fallibility surrounding the said estate. It has been found that where an employer does not insure, particularly when he is a small employer, very frequently his reluctance to insure is accompanied by an inability for financial reasons to effect the insurance.
Suppose we were to introduce a scheme by which you pay a single man a certain rate of compensation, a married man a much higher rate and a married man with children a still higher rate. I am still attracted to that scheme and I hope that before many years have passed we will see it implemented, but I think that if we follow the present pattern of workmen's compensation legislation we would be making a fatal mistake in doing so because once an employer is not compelled to insure, if he carries his own risk he will want to make that risk as light as possible. He may say: I am going to insure my workmen out of my trouser's pocket and if they meet with an accident I will pay, but to make sure that the demand on my trouser's pocket is not very great, if I have to make a choice of recruiting as a workman a single man or a man who has got a wife and two or more children, my liability will be greater according to the domestic liability of the workman I employ. Take as an example a farmer who says: I want a workman. I cannot afford to insure him because I do not feel like giving the insurance company the premiums they now demand for insurance, but at the same time I want to make sure that if I have to employ him I will have to cover him under the Workmen's Compensation Act because if I do not cover him with an insurance company I will have to pay him myself. Take the case of an individual farmer as a matter of simplicity. When he wants a workman the obvious thing for him, if he wants to reduce his risk under a scheme whereby you pay a higher rate to a married man with children, is to say: I will employ a single workman who has no dependents whatever because that is the cheapest form of workman I can employ under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
If you had a scheme following the present pattern of workmen's compensation legislation whereby you paid preferential rates to married workmen with children you would impose on that individual farmer a liability to face a risk substantially higher than the risk if he employed a single man and preferably a single man without any dependents whatever within the meaning of the Workmen's Compensation Act of 1934.
I still like the scheme by which the married man, his wife and children, would play some part in the fixation of the compensation under the Workmen's Compensation Act, but you just simply cannot do it under the present pattern of workman's compensation. I hope to do it, but it can only be done under a State scheme of workman's compensation, under which all those who employ people will pay a certain comprehensive contribution and under-which it will avail them nothing whether they employ single or married men, because the whole contribution they pay, with the worker's contribution, will go into a common pool to meet the collective responsibility.
But if I were to attempt under this Bill to provide special rates for the married man with a wife and children, I fear—and I think that trade unionists with the background of Senator Colgan will appreciate this point—that you might put a premium on recruiting single men. While that might not happen in the City of Dublin, where you have organised employers' associations and organised trade unions, the latter having considerable bargaining strength, it might well happen in country areas, because a small contractor doing a road job, a sewerage job or a water job might go to the local exchange and say: "I intend to carry my own workmen's compensation risk but, so that it will be as small as possible, I want you to send me 50 single men, and, if you can, 50 men who have no adult depending on them." If the exchange does not do that, he could still sieve them out by interview, cutting his risk as low as possible. If he chose to take that line, I could not protect the married man under any legislation at my disposal or at the disposal of my predecessor to ensure that he would get a fair chance of employment. If you put a premium for workmen's compensation purposes on the employment of single men, and particularly single men with no dependents, I could not protect the married man.
While I have a lot of sympathy with the point of view so expressed and have explored that point of view many times, and while I still think it would be possible to attain that objective ultimately, it can only be done on the basis of a national scheme of insurance, under which it will not matter to the employer whether his employee is a single or a married man, because his contribution will be the same. From the views expressed here on the subject and in the Dáil, I think that will not be a matter of any profound political disagreement when we reach the stage at which that objective will be attainable.
I think it was Senator Hawkins who expressed some doubt as to the power in the Bill to declare what the appointed day for its implementation will be. The House may take it from me that I want to make this appointed day as soon as possible, and, with the co-operation of the Seanad to-day, I hope to make the appointed day the first of January, so as to make sure that this Bill will go into operation at the earliest opportunity. The "appointed day" is put in the Bill only to convenience the Houses of the Legislature, and I hope it will be possible, with the co-operation of the Seanad, to fulfil my intention of putting the Act into complete operation on the appointed day, so as not only to enable those who may meet with accidents after the appointed day to get the increased compensation payable under the Bill, but so as to make sure that those who have met with accidents in the past and who are now tied down to compensation of 37/6 a week will be enabled to have their compensation stepped up to the maximum of 50/- per week. In doing that I do not think I am doing anything but the barest justice to a large number of people who have seen their compensation tied down to a figure which represents 25 per cent. increase on the 1934 standard, while many, if not all, sections of the community have got substantially greater increases in their remuneration compared with 1934.
I think Senator Hawkins expressed the view that the compensation provided should be greater. If the Senator has any deep feelings in that matter and if the Chair permits him, he can put down an amendment.