Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 11 May 1966

Vol. 61 No. 3

Public Business. - Social Welfare (Occupational Injuries) Bill, 1965: Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Céim mhór ar aghaidh i gcúrsaí leasa shóisialaigh an Bille seo agus tá áthas orm é a chur ós comhair an tSeanaid. Mar is léir ón mheamhram míniúcháin a cuireadh amach le téacs an Bhille cuireann sé scéim nua ar fáil in áit na scéime atá ann anois faoi na hAchtanna um Chúiteamh do Lucht Oibre.

Beidh a fhios ag Seanadóirí gur cuireadh Coimisiún ar bun chun iniúchadh a dhéanamh ar an scéim um chúiteamh do lucht oibre atá ann faoi láthair. Thairg an Coimisiún seo dhá tuarascáil dom i 1962. Tar éis dom staidéar a dhéanamh ar na tuarascáil seo bhí mé sásta nárbh' fhearr rud a dhéanfaí ná an Bille seo a rith. Bhí sé soiléir domsa gur scéim chasta, chostasach atá ann faoi láthair, a riaradh scaipthe imeasc na gcomhluchtanna 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.

Séard atá beartaithe ná an Scéim Árachais Shóisialaigh a leathnú chun freastail ar díobhálacha agus galair cheirde agus íocaíochtaí níos fearr a chur ar fáil d'oibrithe gortaithe agus a gcleithiúnaithe, ar chostas réasúnta. In ionad an fhreagracht seo maidir le cúiteamh do lucht oibre bheith leagtha go díreach ar an bhfostóir mar atá faoi láthair, freagracht a mbíonn sé inárachaithe ina éadan de ghnáth, íocfaidh mo Roinnse sochair leasa shóisialaigh má dheintear díobháil pearsanta d'oibrí de dheasca agus i gcúrsa na fostaíochta.

Tosóidh an scéim nua ar lá a bhéas socruithe 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 chúiteamh do lucht oibre anois, ach beidh cineálacha eile oibrithe inárachaithe faoin scéim nua freisin.

Is mór an dhifríocht atá idir na sochair a íocfar faoin scéim nua agus na híocaíochtaí faoin sean scéim. Ar feadh sé seachtain is fiche díreach tar éis 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 pháistí atá faoi 16 bliaina 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 £9.1.0 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 mhíthreoir go hiomlán—cuir i gcás, go bhfuil sé dall ar fad—agus íocfar pinsean ag ráta nios 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 acu gur ag an ráta iomlán nó ráta níos ísle atá pinsean á íoc leis. Íocfar na méadaithe le haghaidh cleithiúnaithe, mar i gcás sochar 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 mhíthreoir níos lú ná 20 faoin gcéad den iomlán íocfar cnapshuim airgid nach mó ná £380 leis an oibrí, ach beidh rogha aige pinsean a thógaint in ionad cnapshuime má mheastar go mbeidh sé gortaithe go buan nó ar feadh tréimhse ós cionn seacht mbliain. 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/- so bhreis so tseachtain i gcás ar bith in a bhfuil an t-oibrí gortaithe go mór, má chaithfear aire a thabhairt dó i rith an ama uilig agus é taobh amuigh d'ospidéal.

Beidh na sochair le haghaidh mná pósta éagsúla agus daoine faoi 18 bliain 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 an timpiste san áireamh.

Le cois na sochar thuasluaite tá sé beartaithe faoin mBille go n-íocfar costaisí leighis atá réasúnta agus riachtanach, agus a éiríonn as timpiste cheirde. Íocfar na costaisí seo san mhéid nach mbeidh siad iníoctha faoi fhorálacha na nAchtanna Sláinte nó na nAchtanna Cóireála Meabhair-Ghalar, nó de réir sochair chóireála 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 sochair iníoctha i leith baintreach fir, dilleachtaí agus tuismitheoir nó beirt tuismitheoir cleithiúnaí. Íocfar deontas tórraimh de £50 taréis báis de thoradh timpiste freisin.

Sé an t-aon 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 éirí timpiste a thárla d'oibrí i gcúrsa fostaíochta, muna bhfuil fianaise a thaispeánann a mhalairt. Mar an gcéanna, beidh sé inghlactha freisin gur éirí a leithéid de thimpiste de dheasca fostaíochta más é drochbhéas oibrí eile is cúis leis an timpiste 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 na sochair san Bhille seo de bharr timpistí a tharlaíonn i gcúrsa fostaíochta íocfar iad freisin de bharr galair a bhuaileas oibrí de dheasca a chineál fostaíochta.

I gcás timpistí a tharla nó galair a thóg oibrithe roimh theacht 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 faoi nar 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 52/6d 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 52/6d sa tseachtain, a rinne mé tagairt dó, iníoctha. Faoi na rialacha atá ann fé láthair ní íoctar sochar míchumais faoi na hAchtanna Leasa Shóisialaigh le h-aon 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 dúitimh do réir £4.10. sa tseachtain anois, sochar míchumais de 52/6d 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 h-íocaíochtaí seo i gcás ar bith ina bhfuil siad, san iomlán, níos mó ná an pá san bhfostaíocht as ar éirí an dúiteamh.

Ní chuireann an Bille seo isteach ar chearta an oibrí damáistí a éileamh faoi'n 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 mheas.

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 shocar. 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 Bhreithiúnachta achomhare 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 bhfostóirí i dtaobh timpistí a b'fhéidir fo n-éireódh éilimh asta. 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-éleamh.

Molaim don Seanad glacadh leis an mBille seo.

The Social Welfare (Occupational Injuries) Bill, 1965, which I now bring before you for examination represents a further step in the development of our social services and the attainment of a comprehensive social welfare system which will afford reasonable protection to the average man or woman against the normal hazards of life.

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, than those now afforded by the Workmen's Compensation Acts.

The present levels of compensation, as last revised in the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1955, are briefly:

...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.

I have no doubt that Members of the Seanad share my views that the cover now provided is inadequate and I am happy in the thought that, while there are naturally different views as to the way in which improvements should be brought about, we are all in agreement that a better provision should be made.

The Bill proposals were drawn up following an exhaustive and detailed examination of the present system and possible alternatives by the Commission on Workmen's Compensation which was set up in 1955 by the then Minister for Social Welfare to examine and report on the present system of workmen's compensation and its possible replacement by a scheme of national insurance, or otherwise. While agreeing that extensive changes in Workmen's Compensation were desirable, the Commission was 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 over 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 over, to £7, where pre-accident earnings exceed £11. 13s. 3d., but with no allowance 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. The Minority Report, signed by five members of the Commission, held that the existing system, even with the improvements recommended, would not represent the best method for dealing with employment injury or disease and advocated instead 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.

I would like to say that I examined thoroughly the Reports of the Commission to whom I must pay tribute for the thoroughness and efficiency with which they carried out their task. Perhaps I can pay them no better compliment than to say that all the points of principle raised by Dáil Deputies and others in connection with the Bill were considered in the Commission Reports. The fruits of a commission's work are not confined to its recommendations. The determination and analysis of the problems in the body of the Report are no less important. Differences can arise as to the recommendations which should result from the evidence adduced and, indeed, in this case individual members of the Commission differed. But, even if no recommendations had been made at all, the work of this Commission as set out in their Reports would have been well worth while.

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 or rehabilitation 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. In regard to the Commission requiring compulsory insurance with an insurance company, 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 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, or on the basis of the Minority estimate £4,794,00, and 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 recommened 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, senators 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. 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. The acceptance of lump sums has in many cases resulted in considerable and prolonged hardship due to the money being dissipated long before the need for compensation ended.

The explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill gives information regarding the persons to be covered by the scheme and the benefits provided, but I should mention that, additional to the benefits referred to in the memorandum, some improvements have been made in the course of consideration of the Bill by Dáil Éireann. These are provision of a pension in lieu of a gratuity in certain cases of disablement of less than 20 per cent and increased parents' pensions. I will confine myself here to an outline, with some elaboration, of the main features of the Bill. 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 covered by the existing Workmen's Compensation scheme 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 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 sharefishermen. 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 the Bill. It was put to the Commission on Workmen's Compensation that the expression "arising out of and in the course of the 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. The Commission, however, recommended that the expression should be retained as it 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 sixty years. 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 recommended 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 section 4 of this Bill.

Apart from the provisions in section 4, which deem certain accidents to arise out of and in the course of employment, it will be noted that there is no provision to refuse or limit benefit 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 withheld 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 a 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.

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 26 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 viz. 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 normally take the form of a lump sum. Even in this case, however, a workman will have the option of a pension where his loss of faculty is likely to last for life or a considerable period of years. This benefit, since it is not dependent on incapacity for work, may be paid to a person who has resumed work and, in this case, 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, 52/6d a week, 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 13 6, 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 with increases for dependants 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 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 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 dependant widower of a woman who dies as a result of an employment accident or disease. To quality 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 are also provided for 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. In the case of the parents of an unmarried workman, this pension is 95/- to one parent and 24/-to the other while a married workman's parents may receive a pension of 24/-each. An orphan's pension of 47/6 a week will be granted in respect of an orphaned child or step-child of the workman and also for an 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. 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 in-patient hospital treatment, 7/6d for an X-ray or 2/6d for any other treatment as a hospital out-patient. 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 Senators 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. 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. The existing list will, in particular, be extended to cover pneumoconiosis in all mining operations and Weil's disease and, as I indicated in Dáil Éireann, coverage of dermatitis will, following a Commission recommendation, be enlarged so as to cover dermatitis caused by inhalation, vapour or other external agent capable of irritating the skin, provided that the disease is due to the nature of the employment.

The Workmen's Compensation Acts will not operate in relation to accidents or diseases arising out of employment after the date on which the new scheme comes into operation but employers will continue to be liable to pay compensation under those Acts for accidents or diseases arising before that date. Provision is made in the Bill which 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 available 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 Senators 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 is 92/6, 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/- if he is incapable of work or, being permanently so incapable, of earning more than £104 a year, and up to £8 10/- if he is in need of constant attendance, subject to the limitation that overall payments will not exceed pre-accident earnings.

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 fulltime 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 overtime 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 or pensions 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 other 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.

Other provisions cover such matters as the giving of notice by workmen to their employers of accidents which may give rise to claims and for reports by employers of such accidents and any other matters required to determine claims. Further, a workman may apply for a declaration that an accident arose out of and in the course of insurable employment, even if he is not immediately incapacitated, so that in the event of subsequent disablement from the accident, his right to benefit will be secured. There is also provision relating to disqualification for the receipt of injury or disablement benefit for a period up to six weeks for failure, without a good reason to undergo medical examination or treatment for his injury, or to observe rules of behaviour. A provision on similar lines already operates in regard to disability benefit under the Social Welfare Acts.

A very important aspect of any occupational injuries scheme is its relation to the services available for rehabilitation and training of disabled workers and placing them in employment. Local authorities have been vested, under the Health Acts, with the duty of training disabled persons for, and of making arrangements to place them in, suitable employment. Persons in receipt of occupational injuries benefits will be encouraged to avail themselves of those and any other rehabilitation services; and the Bill contains provision for the making of grants, if necessary, towards the cost. Furthermore, beneficiaries receiving rehabilitation treatment as in-patients will be paid disablement pension at the full 100 per cent rate together with increases for dependants and unemployability supplement, where otherwise qualified.

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 occurring 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 survivor's pensions. Yearly expenditure on benefits will, therefore, increase progressively over a considerable period of years until stability is reached. The rates of contribution 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 2/1d for male employees and 1/6d for female employees and will, it is estimated, cover all the costs arising under the scheme, namely the expenditure on occupational injuries benefits, payment 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 under rehabilitation and research, and the cost of administration. 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 the age of 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 judgment exceeds the estimated capital value of the benefits received and to be received under the Occupational Injuries Scheme. It is worth noting in this connection that, even with the set-off of 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.

In the preparation of this Bill regard was had to the most modern international concepts in the matter of compensation for employment injury. A comprehensive measure was recently adopted by the International Labour Organisation in this field—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.

Finally, 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 provides 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 but 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. The Bill is a major advance in the development of the social welfare system in this country and I have great pleasure in recommending it to Seanad Éireann.

The Seanad will recall the circumstances in which the Government's decision to introduce this Bill was announced: the planting of a question through the medium of the Irish language in Dáil Éireann and the reply which, through the Irish language led to a situation in which nobody knew the Government had announced anything; the fact that weeks passed before the trade unions, insurance companies or the Press knew such a decision had been taken; and the Minister's failure, through the Information Bureau, to make sure that this decision was revealed to the public when his first channel of communication failed through this antic. That was several years ago. In fact, when we come to deal with this Bill we have to talk all the time in years. It is now more than 10 years since the Commission was appointed. It is more than four years since it reported, and several years since the Government's decision in principle was announced. During all this period, and during, indeed, a period of 11 years now, the rate of workmen's compensation under the existing legislation has remained unaltered. The Government have decided this on the completely spurious ground that they could not effect a change in the rate of compensation of the existing scheme when the whole scheme was under review. This is nonsense. There is no reason whatever to adopt that attitude. While our cost of living has risen by more than 40 per cent since 1945, the rate of benefit has remained unchanged and the Government have economised at the expense of injured workers with this spurious excuse that they could not do anything until the whole system was reviewed.

One cannot help being struck by the cynicism of the Minister's remark in the course of his speech:

I have no doubt that members of the Seanad share my view that the cover now provided is inadequate——

That has been pointed out in both Houses over the past 10 years.

——and I am happy in the thought that while there are naturally different views as to the way in which improvements should be brought about, we are all in agreement that a better provision should be made.

It has taken a long time for us all to reach agreement on this point, a length of time which cannot be justified. The Minister has also remarked in his reply to the debate in the Dáil:

I do not think there was an excessive delay in bringing this Bill before the House.

The Commission, God knows, took long enough to report—over five years —but it did report eventually in February, 1962. What kind of standards does the Minister adopt when he says that a period of three and threequarter years between the report of the Commission and the introduction of legislation is not excessive? I cannot understand how any Minister could say that. I would have understood if he had come in and apologised for the delay or, perhaps, if he had tried to say nothing about it in the hope that nobody would notice there had been a delay, but that he should attempt to defend the fact that it has taken three and threequarter years from the Report of the Commission to the introduction of the legislation is simply unacceptable. What is even more unacceptable is the fact that after all this we now have such a bad and botched Bill, introduced to suit the particular purposes of the Department of Social Welfare and because of—I say this with regret—the unimaginative approach and attitude of the trade unions in this matter. The Bill, in its present form, is not designed to meet the interests of the workers in the way it should be designed, and the blame for that I am afraid has to be shared between the Department of Social Welfare and the trade unions.

The background to all this is the Commission's report. I had the honour to be a member of the Commission although I claim not to be responsible for all the delay because I was appointed for the last two and a quarter years of the Commission's life only. It was set up three years before I became a member of it. I was appointed by the Minister's predecessor at the time when he was appointing two additional insurance company representatives to the Commission. This aroused a certain amount of suspicion at the time but I am by no means certain that it was entirely warranted. I was never quite certain why I was appointed!

In the Dáil, Deputy Larkin not only criticised the appointment of the insurance companies' representatives, but he also criticised them for delaying the work of the Commission. In fairness it must be said that that is totally untrue. The representatives of the insurance companies facilitated the work of the Commission much more than anyone else. They were always willing to undertake any task and get any information, no matter in whose interest it was. They behaved in a detached way throughout. They provided the information needed, and were model members of the Commission. In fact, I doubt if the Commission would have reported yet if these two men had not been appointed. In that respect Deputy Larkin's criticism is unfair.

When I was appointed I had no prior knowledge of the subject. It took me some time to find out what workmen's compensation was. I, therefore, had an entirely open mind. Indeed, when it came to signing our names I remained with an open mind, and I had great difficulty in deciding between the retention of the present system and a change. With many qualms, because I felt that the case for a change had not been quite adequately made, I felt myself obliged to sign the Majority Report. I am prepared to admit that I may have been wrong. It was a difficult decision to take, and another person with a slightly different approach might have felt that a case was made for a change. Now a decision has been taken to make a change. That is something we have to accept and face up to, and our problem now is to ensure that the system is improved instead of disimproved. That is exactly what this Bill does not do.

There are four main desirable features of a workmen's compensation system, as anyone who read the Commission's report will be able to see. First, it is desirable that the method of contributing funds in order to support such a system shall be such as to impose the burden where the risk lies. It is desirable that industries which have a high risk element should pay higher contributions so as to encourage a higher standard of safety.

Secondly, it is desirable that the benefits paid should have some regard to the wages of the people injured so that their standard of living is not excessively depressed. This does not exclude dependency allowances if they are thought desirable but, in any event, some regard should be had to the wages of the people concerned.

Thirdly, it is desirable that an injured worker should not be left at the mercy of the administrative machine, and that his claim should not be both heard and re-heard on appeal by the same people, in the same Department, with no right of appeal to an outside body. This is contrary to any concept of justice.

Fourthly, it is desirable that the authority responsible for workmen's compensation should operate a rehabilitation service such as is now operated in Ontario in Canada. We have not got this fourth point in the present system and it is not proposed that we should have it in the new system.

There are defects and serious defects in the present system that we have to face. There may, therefore, be grounds for changes, but it is not easy to decide whether that case has been fully made. In a new system we should ensure that risk remains a determining factor in the level of contributions. We should also ensure that benefits are related to wages, as they are at least in principle at present, although due to the Government's deficiencies the system has not functioned properly in relation to wages as benefits have not been increased in proportion to the cost of living and rise in wages. These cases should be decided not by officials but by an impartial outside source, such as the judiciary. In any change we make in workmen's compensation it is desirable that we preserve these features, while eliminating whatever defects we find in the present system, in the interests of safety, in the interests of maintaining the worker's standard of living, and in the interests of securing justice.

Let us examine what the Government have done. First of all with regard to risk rating and merit-rating—that is relating the contribution to the element of risk—the existing arrangement is abolished, and there is a flat rate of contribution instead. This was justified by the Minister on the spurious grounds that in social insurance averaging of risks is universally accepted as being desirable. That is begging the question, because workmen's compensation is not social insurance as it involves avoidable risks. An essential element in this system should be that people should be deterred from taking risks, and deterred especially from taking risks with other people's lives. To talk about averaging risks is to import a concept appropriate where people have no control over risks into the area where control over risks is vital.

In introducing that concept the Minister is taking his lead from the Minority Report of the Commission produced by the trade union representatives and the representative of the Department of Social Welfare. This concept of risk-rating and merit-rating was rejected by the Minority Report on grounds which are interesting and amusing and which show how far back these people can go. The basis was— can you guess it? —a White Paper introduced by the British Government! There was no question of looking at any other part of the world, as I shall show in the course of what I have to say. In respect of workmen's compensation the British Government are the most reactionary and backward in the world among the 78 countries for which information is available. No other country is as far behind in this respect, but the Department of Social Welfare, and I regret to say the trade unions—because of a policy involving the pursuit of what might be reasonable standards in other areas—have tried to line us up with the most backward system in the world. They quoted from a British Government White Paper of 1944—a White Paper that is 22 years old—and from it they cited quotations from Departmental Reports of 1904 and 1920. Those reports, going back into the mists of antiquity so far as social welfare is concerned, considered that merit-rating that is, fixing premiums on the basis of risk in individual firms, "might if it were possible to introduce it on a more extensive scale prove more effective" but "did not think that any system of this kind could be operated on an equitable basis."

We cannot, however, ignore the fact that this merit-rating system is actually operating in this country. It is the normal system which has operated for decades, and to quote as a ground for not maintaining it a report which said 50 years ago that it was not possible, is not a very progressive approach for the people in the Department of Social Welfare and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions to adopt. The fact is that in this country this system operates and is normal practice in any case where the payroll of a firm exceeds £10,000, which means any firm which employs more than ten or 20 people. Yet because 50 years ago some British Government Department said this was impossible, that is considered a ground for rejecting a system which actually operates effectively to preserve the health and lives of the workers of this country. That type of approach of quoting out-of-date documents and not even checking to find out whether the facts they state are true is an irresponsible one to adopt.

Why did the Senator not question it?

I did question it. The attitude adopted by the Commission and by the trade union representatives was that it was a matter of policy. The real interest of the workers was not taken into account. The policy was to be on a par with Britain. It was not taken into account whether it was good or bad for the workers. If I seem slightly angry at this point, I want to say that I was angry then at that attitude being adopted. I considered it was very unfair to the workers. Why should we go by Britain in this respect? The fact is that if you look at page 303 of the Commission's Report you will find that 48 out of the 73 countries, for which information is available, include in their contribution system a risk element. The only country in Western Europe which does not follow this system, apart from Britain, is Austria. The EEC countries all include this progressive element. We in this country who are thinking of going in with the EEC are not doing anything to be in line with them in this respect. We are moving away from the existing progressive arrangement in the EEC countries towards that in Britain, which the British themselves are prepared to abandon. Why are we committing ourselves to moving away from the system which is in operation in those EEC countries and putting ourselves in line with the system in Britain? Why do we not adopt the system which is capable of being operated by 48 countries? We do not do so because the Department of Social Welfare in this country is incapable of administering such a system. We must move instead to a type of system which threatens the safety of the workers in this country.

The second important element in this matter of compensation is that the benefits should be related to wages. This system is almost absolutely universal. Apart from the reactionary British system the only other place in the world where wages are not taken into account in allowing benefits for workmen's compensation is Iceland, with which we are sometimes confused on the Continent, and also four American States out of 50, two of which exclude wages only in the case of permanent disability. We are moving from a system, which at present is based on a percentage of wages, backwards to a system which has been abandoned by the entire world, simply because Britain has not been able to move out of their antique system. We must move back to the system which they are thinking of abandoning. We still decide to follow the British system even although they are thinking of abandoning it. Britain have introduced a retirement scheme in which the pensions are related to wages. Both Labour and Conservatives are proposing to move towards a system in which other benefits are related to wages. There is recognition, even in that backward country, that the out-of-date system of flat rate benefits invented by Beveridge in the war years must go and that the idea that every worker must be brought down to the same level must be dropped in favour of a more progressive system in which the better-off workers are allowed to contribute more in order to secure higher benefits.

The Labour Party in this country, since the Report was prepared, have committed themselves also to a system of relating benefits to a social security system. They, now that the British Labour Party are moving in that direction, would like to move in the same direction. They have changed their attitude since the Minority Report was presented. Nevertheless, we are now faced with the implementation of that Minority Report.

The Minister, in the Dáil, told us something, at column 292 of the Official Report to which I should like to refer. He made an extraordinary statement. It was extraordinary for a man who told the Dáil at the beginning of his speech that he had read the Report twice. At column 292 the Minister said:

I should say that the difficulties in arriving at an equitable determination of earnings under the existing workmen's compensation scheme led the majority of the commission to recommend flat rate benefits instead.

I cannot fathom how any man, who had read the Report twice, could arrive at that conclusion. I should like to read what the Commission says, which was the exact opposite:

In order to avoid the difficulties which arise in ascertaining average weekly earnings we considered whether payment of compensation under the present system should be made on the basis of a flat rate related to the workman's needs rather than to earnings. A flat rate of 90s. a week, which is the present maximum amount of compensation payable, with allowances for a dependent spouse and three dependent children, would bring the rates of compensation payable here close to the rates of benefit payable under the British and Northern Ireland Industrial Injuries Schemes. However, rates of remuneration in this country are generally appreciably lower than those obtaining in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Circumstances might arise here where a workman earning low wages might get more by way of compensation under such an arrangement for himself and his dependants than he ordinarily earned as wages. We thought this would be undesirable.

Later on the Report said:

We were impressed by the fact that most of the systems throughout the world do not give uniform flat rates of benefit to injured workmen.... We were not satisfied that there were sufficient grounds for the adoption of flat rate benefits in our present system of workmen's compensation and we recommend, therefore, that weekly payments of workmen's compensation in non-fatal cases should continue to be linked to wages.

I do not know how the Minister could have read that and reached the opposite conclusion. It is not surprising, if that is the way in which the Minister read the Report, that we have such an unsatisfactory Bill before us today.

Under this scheme as it stands, a married man with a wife and two children will get £9 1s a week. That is, indeed, satisfactory when related to the wage of a labourer of £10 or £11 a week but when it is related to a skilled worker's wage of £20 a week it is not reasonable. I must say that in this the Commission was unduly conservative. When you take into account the increase in earnings and in prices which has taken place since the Commission's Report—this amounts to about 20 per cent since then—and adjust their recommendations accordingly, the amount of benefit proposed would be something fairly reasonable. But even so, the Commission were too conservative in this respect. The 60 per cent ratio which they applied to earnings at the higher level, and the maximum limit applied would still leave the better paid workers with a sharp cut in their living standards.

It is very unsatisfactory that in the present scheme no account is taken at all of the level of wages. The Minister has said that it is too difficult to find out what people's earnings are. Despite this the Department of Social Welfare proposes to ensure that nobody gets in benefits more than his wages, although they are able to find out people's earnings for this purpose. The Minority Report had nothing to say in answer to this particular point. They merely made some general remarks to the effect that workmen's compensation is akin to social insurance. They did not attempt any real answer to the argument about wage-related benefits. One could say that they were impressed by this point and did not feel that there was any answer to it.

But now we go backwards. We at present have this principle in our legislation, and if the rates paid had been increased as they should have been from time to time it probably would have remained in application. Now, however, we have to go backwards because the Department of Social Welfare cannot cope with a scheme in which benefits would be related to wages and contributions would be related to wages. Every other country in the world except the United Kingdom, Iceland and two of the American States can cope, but not the Department of Social Welfare. The administration of such a scheme is quite simple. It involves taking a percentage of the payroll of the firm, not the wages of each individual, which would be an unduly complex mechanism, and that percentage could vary according to the risk element if you want to keep the risk element in the contribution. As regards establishing the amount of earnings, with the P.60 PAYE form there is no difficulty in establishing these despite what the Minister has said.

The third essential element in any good compensation scheme is that the workman shall at least have a right to appeal to some outside authority and not be at the mercy of officials, not only for the first decision but for the appeal. There has been a good deal of uninformed criticism of our courts in respect of workmen's compensation. There are defects in the present system, and clearly if the Minister favours changing it, it must be because he has come up against a strong feeling on the part of workers that it is unsatisfactory in some respects. Nevertheless, it must be said that the courts have on the whole worked well and there is complete agreement that the judges have always tended to err on the side of the worker. The workers have not done at all badly out of the system though its delays have obviously been a source of concern.

There may be a case perhaps for an initial decision on a claim by a Department official, although in other countries the normal thing is to transfer this initial decision to some kind of tribunal of workers' and employers' representatives, perhaps with an official representing the authority dealing with workmen's compensation. There may be a case for having that in the initial stage. But there is no case whatever for refusing an appeal mechanism. This idea that the decision will be taken by a deciding officer of the Department and then you appeal to the appeals officer of the Department, and that is final, and you cannot appeal to the high court except on a point of law, is completely unsatisfactory, and like everything in this Bill is completely unsatisfactory, and like everything in this Bill is completely contrary to modern practice. I refer again to the position in other countries. Out of 77 countries for which information is available 32 have adjudication on claims by civil courts or by a special court. Twenty-three have initial adjudication by a State body with in every case an appeal to some court or other body—an outside decision to protect the worker's interests: 21 have no appeal from the initial body. Half of these are the Communist countries. Every non-Communist country in Europe except Britain and Norway, and every member of the EEC, have got a right of appeal, with the worker not left at the mercy of Departmental officials. One of the main proposals of this Bill is to bring us completely out of line with the EEC, back to the position where Britain stands and from which it is likely that the British Government will shift in the near future.

Incidentally, the Minister made reference to the International Labour Office Convention of 1964, saying that this was bringing us into line with it. Let us see what the Convention says, from the Minority Report. It recommended that disputes about workmen's compensation "should preferably be dealt with by a special court or board of arbitration comprising, with or without the addition of regular judges, an equal number of employers' and workmen's representatives appointed to act as adjudicators by their respective organisations or on the nomination of such organisations, or comprising employers' and workmen's representatives drawn from other social institutions or, elected by separate electoral bodies of employers and workmen." It contains no reference to any civil servant or Department official. These matters should be dealt with by employers' and workers' representatives with or without the presence of a member of the judiciary. What do we get? Something out of line with the ILO recommendation, totally out of line with the system of the EEC, something adopted in all Communist countries but used only in a small minority of non-Communist countries, a system of no appeal for the worker. No man's livelihood should be left totally dependent on public officials. To deprive people of access to the courts or to some other appeal, particularly when they have had that appeal in the past, is intolerable, and, I suspect, probably unconstitutional.

The fourth desirable feature of any workmen's compensation scheme is one that we have not got at the moment. That is rehabilitation organised and run by the workmen's compensation authority itself under its direct control. The Commission was impressed by the system in Ontario in Canada where the Workmen's Compensation Board has its own rehabilitation service and its own hospitals and doctors. It recognised, however, that for a small country like ours that might be difficult to implement in full, but I think that it would be desirable to have something of that kind or at any rate to move as far as possible in that direction. We cannot do it now under this system because the Department of Social Welfare cannot get involved in rehabilitation. What does the Minister do? He dismisses the matter by saying that it is the duty of the health authorities in this respect and that the workers will be encouraged to avail of these and any other rehabilitation services, if there are any other. I think that this is unsatisfactory.

If the Minister had taken a slightly broader view and had not been under the thumb of his Department and completely at the mercy of the Minority Report, and had read the Report not just twice but perhaps a couple of more times, he could then have decided to change the present system, for which indeed there is a strong case, and have substituted for it a better system instead of a reactionary backward one, and could have established a State body which could have done what the Department of Social Welfare are incapable of doing—introduce a system taking account of risks, provide benefits related to wages, with a body which would not have been so averse to allowing an appeal from its decisions as civil servants always appear to be, and which could have undertaken activities in the rehabilitation field. None of those things was done. The Minority Report was simply accepted and implemented, as indeed, the members of the Commission knew would happen —as was obvious from the attitude of the Departmental representative on the Commission.

This proposed scheme lacks all four vital elements of a good workman's compensation scheme. On top of that and as well as the other things I have mentioned it is administered by a State Department. Let us see what the rest of the world does. Of the 73 countries that we have information on 53 do not have a State Department administering the scheme. The only country in Europe apart from Britain which has a State department administering it is Norway. Once again no EEC country has a State Department-administered scheme.

This scheme is out of line with all modern practice. It involves going backwards, giving up the good elements in our present system, getting out of line with almost all non-communist countries and most countries of the world and out of line with the EEC in all respects. Yet the Minister tells us that this is a scheme which is being brought into line with all modern concepts of social security. You can see how little he and his Department know about modern concepts of social security. In his speech starting off in the Seanad—he did not say it at the beginning of his speech in the Dáil— he said: "Céim mhór ar aghaidh i gcúrsaí leasa shóisialaigh an Bille seo". He also said: "In the preparation of this Bill regard was had to the most modern international concepts in the matter of compensaion for employment injury." In his speech in the Dáil, the Minister also said the Bill represents a major advance in our social services. I do not know how any man can make claims of that kind in regard to a Bill which is a step backwards in our social services.

If the Minister feels a change is needed, the answer is clear: it is to establish a State monopoly insurance authority charging contributions based on risk, with a system of risk-rating and merit-rating for individual firms, with adjudication by the courts or by some outside tribunal and with rehabilitation built into the system. There is, in fact, no country in the world except Britain which has the peculiar combination of reactionary methods such as we are now building into our system. Even in Iceland, which with Britain is the most backward in this respect, they have risk-rating. So there is nobody but Britain and ourselves in this unenviable situation.

I shall turn now to the costing of this scheme. First of all, it is entirely unsatisfactory to put a Bill of this kind before the Houses of the Oireachtas without any statement to show how the costings were arrived at. The Minister has dismissed the costings by simply giving a paragraph of figures thrown together with no indication of how they were arrived at. The Minister said that the overall cost would be £2,500,000. He went on to say that the estimates of the Majority and Minority of the Commission did not 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 cover the cost of enforcing compulsory insurance of workmen's compensation liability or paying disability benefit to a workman immediately on his being entitled thereto.

The Minister went on to estimate what the full cost would be, including provision for these three items. I spent three hours last night considering the totally inadequate information given by the Minister, and after it all I am thrown back, reduced, to asking the Minister a few questions, to which I hope he will give answers. I think the Minister should, before coming to the Committee Stage, present to the House some kind of statement on how the costings were arrived at because it is particularly unfortunate that we should be asked to accept figures of this kind without any details or any indication of how they were arrived at.

How does the Minister arrive at the figure of £850,000 as the cost of three items—the cost of medical expenses, the cost of enforcing compulsory insurance and the cost of paying disability benefit to a workman immediately on his being entitled thereto? What is the break-up? How much of the figure is for medical expenses and how much for the other two items? There is not a word about that in the Minister's speech.

The Minister told us his scheme will cost £2½ million. This is £600,000 more than the second actuarial report, the difference between the two being accounted for by two factors—the fact that the Minister has increased the basic benefits by, he says, 18 per cent and that his £2½ million includes the medical services which he spoke about in the context of the £850,000 difference. Eighteen per cent increase in benefits would raise the figure of £1.9 million up to £2.2 million. This leaves a difference of about £300,000 and if medical expenses account for only £300,000, how does the Minister arrive at a figure of £850,000 for the cost of medical expenses plus the two small items of enforcing compulsory insurance and of paying disability benefits to workers immediately on entitlement, without regard to claims for workmen's compensation? Surely the cost of enforcing a compulsory scheme would involve only a couple of inspectors going around the country, and the last item would hardly cost half a million pounds.

All this information should have been presented to the House in proper form. It is ridiculous that we should be left in the dark, that we should be forced to make these abstruse calculations on the floor of the House. I hope the Minister will give us the information I have been seeking and that he will at least answer my question. At least he should be able to have the full calculations of the costing set out on a piece of paper and let us have it.

The Minister attempted to show that the existing system would be much more costly than his scheme. He says that on the basis of the Majority estimate, there would be a difference of £440,000. On the basis of the Minority estimate, the difference is £1.2 million. But then, the Minority estimate of the cost has no authority whatsoever. The insurance companies were asked to estimate the cost of implementation of the commission's findings and they gave an estimate which took account of all relevant factors. The authors of the Minority Report prepared their estimate, however, on a completely arbitrary basis, and then added £100,000 or so to make it look better. The Majority estimate is the only one we can rely on and even that does not take account of one important factor which can make a difference in the costing.

This brings me to another point mentioned by the Minister. He quoted from the Minority Report to show how little of the premiums the insurance companies returned to workers by way of claims. Why did he choose to quote from the Minority Report for that purpose? It is a fact that during many years the complete failure of the Government to administer or control in any way the insurance companies led to a situation in which less than half of the premiums returned to workers by way of claims.

The Senator told us half an hour ago that the workers did well.

I did not say the present system provides good value. I said the case made for changing the system did not justify the change because the net financial benefit involved thereby would not be more than £200,000, or less than ten per cent. That did not seem to me to be adequate ground for changing the system. I may be wrong and am subject to correction on that. The fact is that the present system as the Government have allowed it to be operated has allowed the insurance companies to get away with murder. Just how much they could get away with is made clear by the fact that the insurance companies, faced with the activities of this Commission, volunteered to enter into an agreement with the Government under which the profit element would be controlled and under which a fixed proportion of premiums would return in the form of benefits.

Guaranteed profits. That is very generous.

Do not take me as defending the insurance companies. Their failure in this respect was irresponsible and the Government's failure to control the insurance companies was equally irresponsible. The calculation of £400,000, the difference between the Majority Report estimate of the present system and the Social Insurance Scheme, does not take into account the saving that would be involved through the agreement the insurance companies would enter into and through which there is reason to believe the claims ratio could be pushed up to 70 per cent.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7.15 p.m.

Before the interval I was speaking about the problems of the costing of this scheme and the difficulty of making anything out of the meagre information which the Minister has provided, and I was asking him whether he could produce further information, a full statement of the costing and a full statement on the basis of the comparison he made. In any event, I hope he will answer the questions I have put to him as regards how he arrives at this figure of £850,000 to cover the three items I referred to.

There is another point I should like to make. In his speech I think the Minister suggested that certain items were not included in the Commission's costing as put forward by the majority of the Commission. He was referring, I think, to two items, the cost of enforcing compulsory insurance and the cost of paying disability benefits to workers immediately on entitlement. I think that in his speech, or in his reply to the Dáil, he suggested that the Commission had not in fact, covered these two items. I just wonder about this. The Commission did say, and perhaps they were wrong in this, and I should be glad of guidance on this, that their costing included all their proposals, which, of course, included compulsory insurance, excepting those relating to surgical and medical treatment. If all these proposals, except surgical and medical treatment, were to be included the cost would be from £1,990,000 and £2,190,000, as in paragraph 490 of the Commission's Report. Perhaps the Commission were in error and those two things were not provided for but I should like clarification about that.

There is one feature of this scheme which seems a deficiency and which should be remedied—that is that no provision at all is made in respect of small farmers. It seems a pity that this should be the case. Agriculture has become one of our most dangerous industries because of the introduction of machinery, some of it very dangerous, and also because of the introduction of chemicals. Of course there is provision for the insurance of agricultural employees and of course the Bill is designed to protect employees primarily. In that way we are making a move towards rather more of a social insurance type of scheme. But would it not be desirable to consider whether small farmers should not be included on some basis? They face these risks and the losses to them and their families if they are injured are very great. In this country the type of return they could get is not such as to enable them to save up to cope with a situation that may arise if they are injured and have no relatives of sufficient age to carry on the farm.

There is, I think, a case for doing something about this. First of all, one might, without getting involved in too many complications, make it optional for small farmers to insure themselves. This would be minimal justice. Secondly, consideration might be given to including them within the scheme on a definite compulsory basis and it might even be worth considering whether their part of the premium could be paid for them in some way if it were felt that the 2/1 a week might be an excessive burden on them.

Certainly, to leave all farmers of this country unprotected so that they are not even entitled to insure themselves individually under this scheme, never mind protecting them against their own deficiency in looking after themselves is wrong. This seems a weakness. Could the Minister give some consideration to them and now that he is introducing this new scheme which provides this new type of coverage even with all its deficiencies which I have already mentioned for all employees, could he not proceed further and open it to farmers, particularly to small farmers to contribute voluntarily perhaps as a first step towards bringing them more firmly within the scheme later on?

Section 27 of the Bill provides an obligation to give notice of an accident by an employee. In subsection (2) I think it is indicated that if he fails to give adequate notice his claim is barred. This seems an extraordinarily inequitable provision. Subsection (2) of section 27 says:

In a case of failure without good cause to give the prescribed notice

—notice which is to be laid down by regulations of which we know nothing—

referred to in the foregoing subsection (including, in the case of a claim for death benefit, a failure on the part of some other person to give the prescribed notice of the relevant accident), regulations may provide for disqualification for receipt of occupational injuries benefit or any amount under section 26 of this Act for such period as may be determined in accordance with the regulations.

We see here an example of how the Department of Social Welfare mentality can operate to the disadvantage of the worker compared with that under the existing system. In the present system the worker can get an order from the court which remains in force until the matter is finally settled. It cannot be disturbed by anyone but here if through default in giving notice of the injury within a time laid down, he may be disqualified by the Department. One would as a minimum like to know what is proposed; what kind of time-limit is proposed? In the existing legislation, as far as I know, he can take action within six months. Will it be six months under these regulations or will this period be shortened? I would certainly hope, at the minimum, that it would not be shortened. If, in fact, he does not give notice within the prescribed time limit, what kind of regulations has the Minister in mind which will disqualify him for the receipt of these benefits? The whole mentality here is the Poor Law mentality, which does not govern the existing legislation, and I think we should look out for questions like these, eliminate them and make this a just measure in so far as we can within the limits imposed by the Government's decision to adopt such a reactionary method of dealing with this particular problem.

As far as I can see there is no provision in this Bill for commuting for a lump sum. The Minister has said he is opposed to lump sums and there are arguments against them, although under the present system there are safeguards here through the actions of the County Registrar. There are cases where it may be in the best interests of the worker to get a lump sum. In many cases it would not be. I do not think it is necessarily wise for a worker to get a lump sum automatically but there are cases where a man given a lump sum could set up a business which he could manage within the compass of his disability but where he could not look after himself as well on the basis of a small continuing payment. Could there not be some provision in the Bill under which the worker could make a case to the authority or, if it is to be the Department, to the Department itself for a commutation for a lump sum if he can show that he intends to use this money in a constructive way? I think certainly workers need to be protected against themselves in this respect but we should not exclude completely the possibility of a lump sum, when, for many disabled workers, this can provide the most effective and most constructive way of dealing with their problem and can itself be a form of rehabilitation. I should like the Minister to give some consideration to that possibility.

I referred a moment ago to the notice of accidents being left to regulations under the Bill. One of the disturbing features of the Bill is that so much is left to regulations under the Bill. It is very hard to evaluate the Bill in many respects when we have not got the most minimal information on how it will operate. There are a number of questions I should like to ask. The Minister referred, towards the end of his speech, to the Employment Injury Benefits Convention of 1964. I wonder what this Convention contains? The Minister was not very specific about this. This is one of the places where he made this entirely spurious claim that:

In the preparation of this Bill regard was had to the most modern international concepts in the matter of compensation for employment injury.

I think I have demonstrated how much hot air that is! He went on:

A comprehensive measure was recently adopted by the International Labour Organisation in this field— the Employment Injury Benefits Convention, 1964.

He then adds, somewhat ominously:

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.

The same "hot air" again! I should like to know how we have fallen so far behind that we have not even complied with the lower standards of the earlier Conventions. How does this come about? What, in fact, does this Convention contain? Have we adopted all its provisions? Disregarding the high sounding phrases he uses, can the Minister assure us, as a matter of concrete fact, that this Bill will be in compliance with all the provisions of the Convention now in force in this field, or in what respects are we still falling short? These are questions we should ask.

One other point on which I am not very clear—so far as I can see it is also a matter for subsequent regulations—is whether the benefit can be discontinued while an appeal is pending. If someone makes an appeal to the other Departmental official who will decide on the opinion of the first Departmental official, will the benefit be continued while the appeal is pending, or will it be discontinued? We ought to know the answer to that.

I am not entirely clear either as to how the Minister proposes to make provision for casual and part-time workers, and so on. Possibly I missed something he said but I did not get a clear picture. What is intended in that respect?

I should also like to know—this again is something which will be part of these mysterious regulations—how will the case be heard, and what kind of representation will the worker have. Can we be assured that his right under natural justice to put his case or to have it put for him will be considered? I would hope so, because otherwise there could be something unconstitutional here. What, in fact, does the Minister intend, and who can represent the worker? Will he be able to be represented by a trade union official, by a solicitor or by whom? What rights will the worker have? I know the rights he has at the moment in the courts of law, but what rights will he have under the new system?

In one section there is an ominous reference to the application of prescribed rules of behaviour. Here we go back again to the old Poor Law. Under the present system you do not get that kind of provision. In the case of disability benefit under this Bill—I think I am right in saying this, the Minister can correct me if I am wrong —if a man is going to leave his house for 24 hours he must leave a message saying where he is going. That is the kind of regulation we do not get on the present system. Is it going to be imported into the new workmen's compensation code? Will we have that type of policing going on? What is intended by "prescribed rules of behaviour"? Will we have an intrusion into people's private lives beyond what is reasonable and necessary?

I note also a peculiar provision in section 22 (2). The section starts off by saying:

Death benefit by way of a grant of fifty pounds in respect of funeral expenses shall, subject to the subsequent provisions of this section, be payable in respect of the death of the deceased.

There will be some poor suckers who will think they will get £50 on the strength of that but subsection (2) provides:

In any such case as may be specified by regulations, the reference to fifty pounds in subsection (1) of this section shall be construed as a reference to such amount less than fifty pounds as may be specified by the regulations for that case.

This seems an odd way of saying that at the discretion of the Minister up to £50 may be paid for funeral expenses, but this would be more honest and would not mislead people into thinking they would get £50 which then is taken back again under subsection (2). What kind of regulation has the Minister in mind? Who will determine who will get the £50? Will there be a means test, or what has the Minister in mind? We ought to know something about that. We have these mysterious regulations which will determine entirely what kind of Bill this will be in practice.

Another point is that throughout the Bill, in sections 8 and 9, and so on, there are references to "an insured person who suffers personal injury caused on or after the appointed day by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment". "... caused on or after the appointed day..." An injury can be caused but not realised until afterwards. It seems more reasonable to me that the determining factor should be when the injury is diagnosed rather than when it occurred. That seems rather unfair in the case of a man who was injured before the Act comes into force. The time of diagnosis seems to be more relevant than the injury itself.

Those are just some of the points on this Bill which we can take up again on Committee Stage. I remain fundamentally unhappy about the Bill. The Minister's decision to change fundamentally the existing system is defensible as I said at the outset, but it is not a decision which one is compelled to take on the evidence. This decision has, however, been implemented in a manner which shows a deplorable lack of imagination, knowledge or understanding of what is happening in the world of workmen's compensation outside Ireland. Appalling complacency is shown by the Minister's repeated references to "the good scheme this is,""how up to date we will be" and "modern conditions", when, in fact, the scheme goes back on the crucial elements of workmen's compensation which exist in some form in the present scheme and which are to be found in almost every country in the free world.

In these circumstances the use of phrases like "modern and up to date" shows a degree of cynicism which seems inappropriate in this House. The scheme proposed in this Bill is antiquated and out of date now. It is adopted because of pressure from within the Department of Social Welfare. The representative of the Department on this Commission was quite obviously determined throughout that the control of the system would come within the ambit of the Department and operating in alliance with the trade union officials who openly showed and stated, indeed, that their interests lay in parity with Britain, regardless of whether that was or was not the best thing, because of general political policies which seem inappropriate in the interests of the workers.

Since then there have been second thoughts. I know that the trade union movement is now moving on, and has adopted the policy of wage-related benefits since this Report. At least the Labour Party have adopted it and I think that represents also the thinking of the trade union movement. They were urged to do so by the Commission but they were still moving in that misty hangover area of British orientation, that nothing was satisfactory unless it was the same as they had in Britain.

It is a reflection of this situation that in the field of Social Welfare the height of imagination is to give 5/-instead of 2/6 in some benefit, particularly if there is the pressure of a general election. There is no evidence of any fresh thinking. There is no evidence that the change in thinking of other countries has penetrated to this Department. There is no evidence of any planning.

In another debate in this House I put the question to the Minister as to what the plans of the Department were within the framework of the Second Programme. The money is available in the Second Programme for transfer payments which are virtually all social welfare payments. The Minister has had virtually three years of the programme in which to plan the resources available to him and to set out how much money will be available for transfer payments. I believe the amount is inadequate. As I said the Minister has had three years with regard to this matter and if there was not enough money available within the framework of the programme then he should have gone to the Government and told them. He should have been able to tell them what the targets needed to be. I hope when the Government are revising their targets for the Second Programme as they are doing now that the Minister will point out the inadequacy of the targets with regard to social welfare.

Targets were set in the Second Programme for seven years ahead. They referred to the whole social welfare code. One would have thought that if the Department of Social Welfare had any interest in their work they would have prepared a White Paper with regard to new schemes, and with regard to increased benefits in existing schemes and so on in the light of the targets for 1970. I only know of two reactions in regard to this. The Taoiseach, during the general election campaign, remarked in a rather depressed way, that preparing a social programme was very difficult. There is no difficulty about this when there is already provision made for it within the framework of an economic programme. The only other communication we have had from the Government in regard to the planning of social welfare was the surprise expressed by the Minister in this House when I made the points I am making now, with regard to the idea of planning. He said you could only plan a year ahead.

We have had the extraordinary determination of the Government to follow Britain. There has been constant looking at Britain alone. This has been particularly evidenced in regard to this Bill. This Bill is a change of the existing system. After 11 years of following the English benefits it would be surprising if the Bill did not effect some improvements. They will be considerable in some cases but nothing like what the improvements could have been if the Department of Social Welfare or the Minister was up to date with developments elsewhere or even up to date with what the situation was elsewhere five or ten years ago. We only have the benefits contained in this Bill when everywhere else, almost the entire world, have a risk-rated system and have benefits related to wages. The present Bill is an utter condemnation of the Minister and his Department with regard to benefits for workmen's compensation.

We have heard now at some considerable length all the things which this Bill does not do and all the conventions, codes and principles that it does not comply with. We have had references, first of all, to the Report on Workmen's Compensation, the ILO Convention, the EEC schemes and even to the Constitution. If Senator FitzGerald had picked one of these and made his case on the basis that it did not comply with one particular one he might have been able to make a consistent case but the fact that it does not comply with all of them——

——is looking for a little bit too much. I do not believe that any system of workmen's compensation in any of the EEC countries, or anywhere else, manages to fit in with the desirable principles contained in all the different bodies, constitutions and so on which Senator FitzGerald referred to. If such a scheme were prepared it would be such a patchwork of conflicting interests and conflicting principles that it just would not succeed in doing anything.

However, I shall not follow him up those various paths. We might, for a change, have a look at the Bill from the point of view of what, in fact, it does. We could consider whether it is a good Bill, whether it is an improvement on the existing position and whether, in fact, it confers benefits on workmen. That, after all, is what the Bill is designed to do. If it succeeds in that, then it is a Bill which is worthy of our support. I believe, in that regard, that it is worthy of support.

I welcome the Bill in general, but while I welcome it I have a number of reservations about it which I shall mention in a few moments. I would like to say in doing so, that I approve very much first of all of the increased benefits. The benefits at the moment are extremely small and the benefits under the new Bill are very good. They are certainly as good as we could expect to have at this stage of the development of our economy. I would like, in particular, to praise and welcome the disablement benefits. This is an excellent idea. It is an idea which enables the workman to go back to work although he still has some results of an injury. He still has some incapacity as a result of his injury. This is a very necessary thing because naturally a workman who possibly could go back to work but was suffering in some way was very reluctant to do so if it meant that he was unable to claim any workmen's compensation and claim any compensation for the injury which he suffered and from which he was in some way still suffering. This is an excellent idea and it will be of great benefit in rehabilitating workmen who may be suffering in some way but are still capable of going back to work and taking up a job.

I would also like to welcome the provision made for medical care and medical attendance. The benefits under this Bill are really very good. They are well planned and they will be of great benefit to workmen. As I have already said, this is the main purpose of the Bill and certainly as far as that is concerned I welcome the Bill. The question that has been asked, and no doubt will continue to be asked, is whether it was necessary to merge the workmen's compensation with the social welfare code. As we know, the Minority Report thought it was necessary and the Majority Report thought it was not. There was a lot to be said basically for the point of view expressed by the Majority for the reason that there was not much criticism of the workmen's compensation code up to the present. Apart from the fact that the benefits were extremely low, generally speaking, there was a fairly strong body of opinion which held the view that if the benefits were increased and made a little bit more flexible in some ways the code in general was reasonably satisfactory.

Nevertheless, though I am not entirely convinced by the argument which has been made for taking it into the social welfare code I have to agree that there are very strong arguments in favour of taking it in. There is no doubt that the kind of assistance that has been given and of payments made are very similar to the payments made for unemployment, sickness and so on, and that there is a strong argument for saying that workmen's compensation should be combined with the other social welfare payments, and that it will rationalise the position to a very considerable extent. The argument is there, and although I am not entirely convinced by it at the same time I can see the force of it and see that it had what one might almost describe as a fatal fascination for the officials of the Department of Social Welfare.

The principal argument that is made in favour of the new system is that the costings will be very much lower. Of course, costings are such a difficult and complicated matter that it is very hard for anybody who does not go into it in great detail to know exactly what the comparative costings are. The costings in the Bill have been compared with the costings under the old system when workmen's compensation was carried by insurance companies. The costings which are now proposed certainly appear to be extremely favourable compared with the old system. One must, however, remember that we are comparing what the costings were with what the Minister and the Department expect the costings to be in the future.

We do not in fact know what the costings will be, and we will never know, because the costings of workmen's compensation will be merged with the other costings in the Department and I doubt whether it will be possible ever to distinguish them or to know exactly how they compare with what has been the position in the past. However, I hope that the expectations and optimism of the Minister in this respect are justified and that, in fact, better value will be given in future, but it must be recognised that State undertakings, State services and schemes, are not noted for their economy, and schemes that start out on the basis that they are going to cost very little often, indeed almost always, turn out to cost a great deal. If the scheme proves as expensive, if it proves not to be any more economic than the scheme in the past, and if the only substantial difference is that the insurance companies who did provide the scheme will have to let staffs go and the Department of Social Welfare will have to take on staff—if that is the only substantial difference, then the recommendations of the Majority Report will prove to be justified. If, on the other hand, the expectations of the Minister and his Department are confirmed and if there is a general saving, and if the position is that better benefits can be provided at the same cost or even less cost, then, of course, the Minister will be justified and the scheme will be in every way a very good one.

I should like to draw the attention of the Seanad to the fact that when this Bill is implemented a very large volume of business in terms of turnover to the extent of possibly £3 or £4 million a year will be taken from private enterprise, from the insurance companies, and taken over by the State, and that this is being done without any question of compensation of any kind. There are very few industries in the country—and when I am talking about industries I will not dare to even mention agriculture—which would allow this to happen without insisting on some kind of compensation at least, and if they did not get some redress would protest very loudly, and possibly we would have pickets outside the gate or something of that order. I do not think that anything can be or is going to be done at this stage, but the fact remains that a very large volume of business has been taken from private enterprise, and whatever one might feel about it one way or the other, whether it may be justifiable in the national interest or whatever the reason may be for it, I do not think it should be allowed to pass without referring to the fact that it is being done. If it continues to be done in other spheres, then we will be adopting a trend which could have very serious and widespread repercussions.

In regard to some of the details of the Bill, one of its effects is that the lump sum is going to be eliminated. I know that there are strong views both ways about this and that the Minister regards it as a very important thing that the lump sum is no longer available. Undoubtedly there have been cases in the past, quite a number of them, where a workman was given a lump sum either at his own request or at the suggestion of his employer and he very quickly spent that lump sum and found himself destitute again. I cannot, however, agree with the suggestion or the implication that workmen are children or irresponsible people who cannot be trusted with money. From my experience in the courts certainly most plaintiffs, whether common law plaintiffs or workmen's compensation plaintiffs, are extremely shrewd and well advised, and comparatively speaking, very few of them are incapable of getting a lump sum and dealing with it in a reasonably responsible way. There are certainly cases where a lump sum can be of far more benefit to a man. It can enable him to buy a bit of land or a shop or something with it, and it can be of more benefit to him than small weekly payments, so that whereas I think there is certainly a case for eliminating the present system where the employer can force the workman to take a lump sum after a certain period, I think the workman should still be allowed to take a lump sum if he feels that in all the circumstances it is the most advantageous thing for him to do.

I mentioned that I had some reservations on the Bill. The principal reservation I have is to the fact that the claims by workmen are going to be adjudicated upon by Departmental officials— by a deciding officer with an appeal to an appeals officer. Under existing legislation the workman with a claim could bring it to court and whatever one may say about the courts, they do have some merit. Certainly, as far as the workman is concerned, whereas it may be true that sometimes there were certain delays before cases were decided, there is no doubt whatever that when the courts decided cases they always gave a fair hearing to the workman who always got the benefit of the doubt, to say the least of it.

Now we will be at the mercy of a bureaucratic adjudication system which works in very curious ways. The Minister will doubtless tell us he has a deciding officer who will hear the workman's case in the first instance, and an appeals officer, and that these will be responsible and unprejudiced men who will have the interests of the workman at heart. I have no doubt they will be unprejudiced and have the interests of the workman at heart and that within their own lights and in the context in which they work, they will be as fair as possible to the workman, but there is no question of such a system being a substitute for the courts where both parties are allowed to argue their cases in public, where a judge, experienced in assessing evidence and whose independence is guaranteed by the Constitution, presides. I cannot believe that, no matter how well disposed Departmental officials are, this kind of adjudication will be as satisfactory as the courts, the system that exists at the moment.

There is, unfortunately, in recent legislation—I am not suggesting for a moment that the Minister or the Department have started a new trend by this Bill because there has been this tendency in legislation going back for many years—a tendency to have disputes heard by officials, to have them referred to arbitration or to anybody except the courts. The excuse given for this usually is that it is more expedient, that it is less trouble, that it takes less time, that it is less expensive. Numerous other reasons of the kind are given, one of them being that the courts take a long time. Anybody who has dealt with Government Departments and who has got involved in bureaucratic red tape will know that however long it may take to get a decision in the court, the record certainly could be given to Departments in this respect.

As I have said, this is a question of expediency. Of course, there is no doubt that we cannot ignore the fact that certain things may be expedient and if there is a quicker way or a handier way of doing things, this is an argument in its favour. However, we must ask ourselves how far do we go, where do we stop, are we to keep on allowing decisions of this kind to be taken by officials, to be taken by new types of arbitration just because it is expedient. There must be some limit, some point at which we come to the conclusion that we cannot go any further in that direction in the interests of expediency. It seems to me that we have got very near that stage at the moment.

In this country the privilege of having our cases heard, our rights decided by courts of law is something we had to fight for very hard, something for which we had to fight for a long time, something which I am afraid we are inclined to abandon much too easily. I feel we should look at this problem and that every Bill of this kind that comes before us in which a right or a claim which had been in the hands of the courts is sought to be transferred to a Government Department, to bureaucracy, should be studied very closely and we should consider very carefully whether we have not gone far enough in that direction.

This is not the first time that this principle of the right to have workmen's benefits decided has been infringed. This Bill may not represent the most important example of that kind of infringement. It may not amount to a basic right, but the right is of considerable importance to the workman and this Bill represents another step, another example of a trend which I do not welcome. Having said that, I should like to point out that basically, for the benefits it provides, the Bill is an excellent one and I have much pleasure in welcoming it.

I have great pleasure in welcoming the Bill which I think is long overdue. I have long thought that the position of workmen in this country who were employed in circumstances which might be a danger to their health or who were liable to injury in the course of their work was extremely unsatisfactory compared with other countries. I have thought time after time that the machinery, where it existed, for dealing with their problems was in itself unsatisfactory.

I have listened to Senator Ryan with considerable interest dealing with the way in which this Bill will operate in relation to the award of benefits arising from injuries in comparison with the machinery which has operated and which will operate up to the coming into operation of the Bill. The courts were the principal agents involved. Of course, it would be dangerous for us who are not lawyers to enter into any kind of discussion about the operation of the various claims for workmen's compensation that have arisen in the past.

Senator Ryan said the injured person always got the benefit of the doubt. I have no doubt that is so and that in some cases the benefit was reasonable. However, it has operated in the other direction in some cases when insurance companies have found the way in which this machinery worked to be rather expensive. I have no doubt the courts represent the best machinery for the working of a system like this but they have been used for the reference of such claims to juries. I know as an expert witness how difficult it is to get across to a body of laymen the medical facts of a case, particularly when there is a colleague on the other side trying to explain them in another way. Members of a jury are likely in such circumstances to be influenced by emotional rather than factual considerations. Therefore, I do not attach the same significance to the proposed new arrangements as a lawyer might do though I must say I can see the point of sticking to the courts as far as possible.

In relation to the details of the Bill, there are two or three sections to which I should like to refer specifically. One is section 34 which deals with rehabilitation. This is something which is overdue, I think, in this country. I said before in this House that the war demonstrated the extent to which seriously injured people might be brought back into employment. Great strides have been made in other countries in this direction. In Ireland we have followed after a lengthy interval but at any rate, we are doing a considerable amount of work at the moment in this direction. One of the difficulties is support for this work in any kind of official or semi-official way. One of the principal channels through which such work can be started is by reference to rehabilitation of disabled people. At the moment there is no way in which this can be done, and at the same time remunerate the sectors employed in doing this rehabilitation work, except through the agency of the employer.

Where we have an unemployment problem in this country and plenty of people who are otherwise able-bodied and prepared to take on jobs, employers sometimes do not see the point of spending a lot of money on rehabilitation. This will be of tremendous benefit to injured people. It will stimulate work in this regard and the benefit will accrue very widely. I am quite certain about that.

The Minister, I notice in section 35, will also have power to promote research into the incidence and causes of industrial illnesses and accidents. This, again, is another considerable step forward in my opinion. I mean the need for such research has been recognised by many people for a very long time. I am not quite certain whether the Minister, with all respect, is the person to promote such research. I think it would be more within the province of a body in which there would be a considerable amount of expert information available to guide and direct the efforts of research workers in matters affecting industrial health.

In this regard, I think it is rather a reflection on our efforts towards this end that we have not in any of the medical schools in the Republic a department of occupational therapy. I know of two or three medical schools, my own included, to which experts come and give perhaps half a dozen lectures to medical students in their later years on industrial health problems. This is a very small contribution towards this very vast subject and with the departmental arrangements which we have in medical schools it is difficult to make it any greater.

I would think that in his efforts to promote research into industrial health the Minister would be well advised to give thought, perhaps in conjunction with his colleague, the Minister for Education, to encouraging the establishment in medical schools of departments of industrial health. They could be entirely separate departments but that might not be necessary at least for a while. They could easily start off by being sub-departments of departments of social or preventive medicine which most of the schools have set up. I think this would be a channel through which a continued programme of research could be done on this subject. It reaches out in all directions. In a very short time industrial accidents would lead to the study of road accidents and the benefit would accrue widely.

I have great pleasure, indeed, in supporting this Bill.

This is a Bill which of all Bills which might have been introduced in the Seanad is the one which should have been introduced in the Seanad. It is a Bill dealing with workmen and employers. I would have thought this House was admirably suited for a Bill of this kind. Here we have members of the Labour Panel who would be able to deal with the interests of the workmen, and members of the Industrial and Commercial Panel who would be able to deal with insurers and employers. I would have thought that those on the Cultural and Educational Panels, and I see some of them here who are lawyers, would also have an interest in and a knowledge of this Bill. It is regrettable that what should, indeed, be a technical Bill, designed to further the interests of the workman, was not introduced in a chamber which is admirably suited to that purpose.

Now, I commented this evening on the Merchant Shipping Bill which was introduced nominally in the name of Senator E. Ryan and I could not help thinking that he should introduce more Bills. I could not help thinking, listening to his speech this evening, that it was a great pity that it was not he who had the introduction of a Bill designed to promote workmen's compensation. I rather think it would be very different from and better than the measure now before us.

Of course, nobody will oppose this Bill on Second Reading. It seeks to extend the type of benefits to be paid in future to injured workmen and their dependants and to the extent that the Bill does this and will do it we can only say it is long overdue. It is a disgrace to think that since 1955 with all the rounds of wage increases —the 12 per cent and now the £1— the one class who have got no increase in 11 years, when the maximum rate of compensation was fixed at £4 10, were the workmen. Let it not be said that it was because Members of Parliament were lacking in responsibility. Time and time again there have been questions put to the Minister for Social Welfare asking him when he was going to introduce legislation to increase the £4. 10. The Minister's reply always was that he was waiting to introduce this comprehensive measure. This comprehensive measure comes in now and if, as I calculate it, the cost of living has risen 30 per cent since 1955 what a workman now at £4. 10. should be getting is an increase of £1. 16. which would bring him up to £6. 6. 0. That is what every workman should be getting having regard to the increased cost of living. Indeed, £6. 6. 0. is a measly sum to offer any workman with dependants at the present time. The position under this Bill is that if a single workman, or a workman without dependants, were to have got the proper cost of living increase on his compensation his position would be worse under this Bill than if he had got that measure of justice because he will only get £5. 15. 0.

Under this Bill a single workman will only get £5 15. 0. and a widower will still only get £5 15. 0. In fact, in terms of money he is getting less than he should be getting if the £4 10. 0. had been increased pari passu with wages outside since 1955. This Bill is in many ways a reprehensible measure because of the withdrawal of this particular form of insurance from private enterprise based on some theory which the Minister and his Department have. It has come not by way of doctrinaire democracy but by doctrinaire bureaucracy.

It has all these marks in every single section of it. There was a time when, as we all remember, the railways in this country were not paying their way and the greatest panacea for that particular ailment was introduced in 1944 and subsequent legislation of 1950, 1955, 1958 and latterly in 1963. All of these were designed to withdraw from private enterprise the railways which were, in fact, an ailing system and could not be cured but the hope among the bureaucrats was that all would be well. The latest position is that we are going to hive off certain aspects of the transport. I am rather inclined to agree with Senator E. Ryan. Indeed, I must congratulate him upon the very fine speech he made with which I agree in great measure. This particular scheme may well come to the stage again, as he rather forecast it may, that it is back to private enterprise it should go. There has been some kind of a notion that because insurance companies were making some profit out of employers' liability insurance that that was an unholy thing and that the workman was not getting a fair crack of the whip.

That was what Senator Garret FitzGerald said.

I have no doubt in my mind that the workman will not get nearly as fair a crack of the whip in this Bill as he got under the old system. It was said to me by a solicitor down the country and, lest the House should get the impression that he was an Opposition follower, let me say that he was a very vigorous and active Fianna Fáil solicitor, and I am sure he is out working this evening canvassing on behalf of his Party. This gentleman asked: "How in God's name did the trade unions let that Bill go through?" I said: "What are you talking about; it is based on the Trade Unions' Minority Report and the trade unions foolishly think they will get a better deal from the Department of Social Welfare than they have got from private enterprise in the form of the insurance companies and, when necessary, in the courts under the existing code." Of course, there are some people who would say: "Well, these are the lawyers who are talking; workmen's compensation will be withdrawn from the courts; they are complaining about that because they will lose money." Let me declare my interest in this matter straight away. Every lawyer who gives any thought to this Bill, who talks with any insurance official and who knows anything about what happened in Britain, rejoices at the introduction of this Bill because there will be much more litigation in the courts on the common law side as a result of the introduction of this Bill than there has been up to the present time. So that, as far as I and people like me are concerned, we do not lose any money. No loss of earnings will result from this Bill. This is a godsend to the lawyers and, to that extent, we must be grateful to the Minister for having unwittingly helped us, for, I am reliably informed by the insurance companies, only one per cent of workmen's compensation cases ever came into court. One per cent and, of that one per cent, I am quite certain, from my own experience, that in 95 per cent of these the workmen succeeded. As Senator Jessop said, there was oftentimes considerable doubt——

Is that not why the other 99 per cent did not go into court?

The reason they did not go into court was that they were paid their workmen's compensation. The 99 per cent were granted because it is a very simple thing to determine whether or not a man met with an accident in the course of his employment. It is a plain matter of fact, and employers and insurance companies accept, in 99 per cent of the cases, that the man did meet with an accident in the course of his employment and, accordingly, pay the appropriate compensation. The cases where it did go into court—the one per cent of litigation—resulted where, sometimes, there was a phony excuse given by the workman or where there was considerable doubt in the minds of everyone as to whether or not the man had met with an accident in the course of his employment. I remember being on the opposite side, opposed to the workman, in a case and nobody could understand how he got crushed by the tipper of a lorry that came down on him. But he did get crushed; nobody could understand how the tipper gear had come down on him and he got hernia as a consequence. The truth of the matter was that the man was found to have met with an accident arising out of the course of his employment. That was a particular case and the doubt was resolved in favour of the workman. These are things not known and cannot be known in the Department of Social Welfare because they do not meet with them every day. We meet with them every day—that is with the one per cent of cases which come into court. The other 99 per cent were not left in the desert—they were paid their workmen's compensation.

As regards 10 per cent of the cases, I am reliably informed again, and I believe it from my own experience, that in many cases in which a man was paid workmen's compensation he was paid it where there was no negligence on the part of the employer. In some of these cases— perhaps 30 or 40 per cent of them— there would be negligence on the part of the employer and the man would be entitled to come into court and say: "I am entitled to get more than £4. 10. 0 per week." He might also say: I have a thumb or finger which was cut off, an injured leg or another injury—and be paid his compensation at common law based upon the negligence of the employer. All of these cases were settled where there was no doubt whatever about the employers' liability on the workmen's compensation side.

What will happen under the new system is that the workman will get his compensation from the Government and the devil thank them. He will have no gratitude for that and then he will look to his employer. He has got nothing at all from his employer. Up to now at least his workmen's compensation has been paid by the employer and he was paid the money physically by his employer every week. Under the new system he will be getting nothing from his employer. He will rightly go along to his solicitor, explain how the accident happened and be advised as to whether or not he has grounds for claiming. I am reliably informed that in 30 or 40 per cent of cases where workmen's compensation was paid to date the workman was also entitled to a lump sum for the negligence of his employer. Under the new system every workman who has any kind of a common law action based upon the negligence of his employer will undoubtedly "have a go" at the employer. This is where litigation in the courts will increase fourfold. I am not objecting to it but I want to declare this so that any criticism which I or any other lawyer may make will not have proceeded on the basis that something is being taken away in the form of fees paid to lawyers and barristers under the Workmen's Compensation Acts. That argument goes, as I am satisfied that litigation and the work for lawyers will increase as a result of the introduction of this Bill.

There has been some suggestion, too, I am told, about a reduction in premiums in employers' liability policies when this Bill comes into operation. I am told that, based upon experience elsewhere, that is quite unlikely to happen but that more than likely employers' premiums will rise because of the increase in litigation on the common law side, about which I have spoken.

The trade unions who provided this Minority Report have made the capital error of thinking that the workman will do better under the Department of Social Welfare than he did under the old system. Listen to what they have to say in paragraph 17 of their Report:

A Social Insurance Occupational Injuries Scheme would have many attractive features. It would remove workmen's compensation from the atmosphere of litigation and contention, with a consequent betterment of the relationship between employer and employee.

If you have regard to the fact that 99 per cent of the cases never enter the litigation stage you are dealing here with only one per cent. They continue:

Administration would be by the same machinery as in the case of other social welfare benefits by way of Deciding Officers and Appeals Officers.

This is the gem which will cause amusement to anyone who has had to make representations to the Department of Social Welfare:

This system is flexible and impersonal——

Everyone will agree it is impersonal——

——and has worked to the complete satisfaction of the insured population since it was introduced by the Social Welfare Act of 1952.

When I came across that I read it a second time, and then I conducted a Gallup poll, an opinion census, of Senators and Deputies about the system of appeals in the Department of Social Welfare and how that system works. I was told that was a laugh. Deputies and Senators and people who have to make representations to Government offices come up against a stone wall and get no satisfaction from the Department of Social Welfare. They will write and tell you that you have the right of appeal to an appeals officer, and that that can be effected by sending a submission in writing to the Department.

I have been told by this most reliable solicitor to whom I have referred of one appeal which was conducted by an appeals officer, and the medical doctor gave evidence about two people he had never examined and said they had quite recovered. They were paid no more disability benefit. That is the kind of thing that never happens under the present system if the worker is entitled to workmen's compensation. I was told that was not an isolated case. This Report says that the system is impersonal. That doctor did not see those people and that was certainly impersonal. If that is the kind of system that gives complete satisfaction the workers will learn to their cost under this new Bill that they have parted with a good scheme for a spurious one.

Are lawyers better than doctors on the whole?

I shall not deal with interruptions, but if I understand what the question is I shall be delighted to deal with it. The old code has worked well. Of course, there were manifest defects in it. The principal defect was that the £4 10s. had not been increased by one penny over a period of 11 years since 1955, notwithstanding all the rounds of wage increases. Indeed, there were other defects. One of the great defects in the old code was the six months rule. Proceedings had to be taken within six months and if not the person was absolutely out unless he could show there was reasonable cause. That caused some inequity and it was not always due to a fault on the part of the workman. There should have been some amelioration of that position. Wherever reasonable cause was shown, invariably the courts leaned over backwards in favour of the worker and allowed his claim through.

One outstanding defect in this Bill— and I am not saying it has not got the merit of the increase in the range of benefits—is that the rights of workmen will be decided by the officials of the Department. I know this from my own experience and Senator Ryan has borne it out. Their view will always be coloured by the fact that this is an Act of Parliament and they will be trying to keep within it. If the Fund is running down and it appears that the contributions will have to be increased, their view will be coloured by that fact. I have seen this in the case of an application to the Land Commission. I have no doubt that the present financial difficulties of the Government were responsible for my client not getting what I felt he was entitled to from the Land Commission. I have very little doubt that the decision was influenced by the current financial situation, and I have equally little doubt that in a case under this Social Welfare Bill the appeals officer will be influenced by the current financial situation.

People should know what they are parting with before they support this Bill as wholeheartedly as Senator Jessop does. They should realise that there were a great many safeguards in the old code to protect the employee. If a person had an accident involving disability of a finger or thumb which reduced his grip by 40 or 50 per cent, that is the kind of thing that might be settled by the payment of a lump sum of, say, £400 or £500. That was not a private arrangement. He was not dragooned into it by an insurance agent, by his own solicitor, or by the solicitor for the other side. The arrangement had to be registered as an agreement and had to go before the county registrar. If, having read the medical report, he was not satisfied that the sum offered was sufficient he referred it to the courts, and the judge heard the medical evidence and decided whether the sum was, in fact, sufficient.

I may say that especially in the case of minors who are not allowed—in theory in law, at any rate—to have any real opinion, in order to determine matters, judges acted with fatherly solicitude that would beget the admiration of any person listening to them. Not very often, but not infrequently, judges refused to register agreements upon the grounds that they did not think them sufficient and after further negotiations if the judges were satisfied with the medical evidence the sums were increased. Those were some of the safeguards.

Again let it be said that where a workman felt he was entitled to compensation and did not get it, he had a direct appeal to the Supreme Court at very little cost. He did not have to supply a transcript. He got a final and a speedy decision in the Supreme Court. There was some reference in some of the documents I read to delays. I think Senator Ryan dealt with this. The whole scheme of workmen's compensation was admirably designed by whoever was the Minister's predecessor in 1934. A summons was issued and immediately on the issue of the summons it came on the Circuit Court list without further ado. If there was an application for an adjournment the judge would inquire if the man was being paid compensation. If he was not being paid compensation the judge would not adjourn the case. He would say: "I will not adjourn this case if the man is not being paid compensation." If he were being paid compensation there was a question as to whether it might be discontinued, or whether there were review proceedings in operation, but so long as he was being paid compensation the judge would adjourn the case. That was my experience and I am quite certain all my colleagues in the Bar have had the same experience with regard to the administration of this code. It is more human than the impersonal approach that is so lauded in the Minority Report of the Workmen's Compensation Commission.

The Minister has referred to the desirability of this lump sum payment. I think it was the Department of Social Welfare who actually killed this kind of thing. They probably felt that it is very difficult to pay and, therefore, it is gone out of the Bill. There is very little doubt in my mind that the small farmer working for the county council or for anybody else, who got a small lump sum of £500 or £600 and whose capacity to earn was reduced and who very often was enabled to buy more stock or use the lump sum in some way to help him to earn his livelihood within the limitations of his disability, when he realises that this lump sum is gone, will thank the Minister for Social Welfare, any of his advisers or those who wrote the Minority Report for the Commission. The lump sum was always the great settler of claims and, indeed, the great healer of diseases.

The other circumstances in which the lump sum was payable was where a man was found to be totally incapacitated and the employer had the right to come to the court, or the man himself, if he was receiving payment for two years, and ask to have his weekly payment commuted and a lump sum paid. Again, in that kind of situation the man's circumstances and background were looked at and it was then decided whether or not he should be paid the lump sum. I have not got the exact figures for this thing but certainly it was not easy to get the lump sum paid to the workman in that kind of case. The courts exercise discretion with regard to this matter and they decide whether or not the lump sum should be paid to the workman. Those people have more experience of life than those who are confined to going into their office day in, day out. A judge in court has more experience of all those circumstances and he will take far greater care with regard to the workman than would be the case in the impersonal approach of the Department of Social Welfare.

Senator FitzGerald referred to the fact that there is no relationship in this scheme between the benefits that the workman will get and his income. I would certainly have thought that in a measure of this kind, which is setting the pattern for the future, we would have got away from this deplorable fixed amount which is at present payable and which will be payable under this Bill. Many people nowadays earn £14, £15 or £16 a week but the rate which he is allowed merely takes care of his outgoings and leaves nothing for food and fuel. This cannot be regarded in any sense as a modern scheme of social welfare.

I would have thought that a beginning would be made in this Bill of relating social payments to income prior to injury. I do not know why the Minister has not done that because it is no skin off his nose. It will be payable by the employer. I rather think that if a workman had the option he would prefer to make a small payment himself in order to get that kind of protection against financial distress in the event of his becoming incapacitated from injury due to an accident. It is very regrettable that the Minister did not introduce that one new principle in this Bill especially when, as I say, it would not call for any increase in taxation or any money from public funds.

There is no reason why a person who is self-employed, say a self-employed window cleaner, a self-employed plumber or a self-employed shopkeeper, should be in a less advantageous position under the law, in relation to injuries from an accident, than a man who is employed. I cannot see any logic in this. Why is it that a man who is employed can be paid this occupational injuries benefit while a man who has the independence to be a self-employed plumber, a self-employed carpenter or a self-employed window cleaner, who is involved in exactly the same kind of accident in the same circumstances and receives the same type of injury, cannot get workmen's compensation while the other man gets it. I should like the Minister to resolve the illogicality of that situation when he is replying.

It seems to me that, as it is at the present time under the Social Welfare Acts, with regard to widows and orphans, in connection with voluntary contributions, the same should apply in regard to self-employed people, in the matter of injury from accidents while they are employed. They should be able to come within the ambit of this Bill by making payments themselves. That can be done in relation to widows' and orphans' benefits by people whose income, as a result of increases received, is outside the ambit of the Social Welfare Acts. Self-employed people should be entitled to be insured under this particular Bill against accidents arising out of their employment.

There was some reference, I think, by Senator Ryan to the effect this Bill will have on insurance companies. I do not know to what extent people will be rendered redundant when this Bill comes into operation. It may well be that they will not be redundant but if people in the various insurance companies are redundant because of the closing down on the workmen's compensation side of their business somebody should provide some kind of payment to meet such redundancy. It may well be that there will be a time lag between the point at which people become redundant and the point at which the need arises by reason of increased litigation on the common law side. I expect there will be the usual time lag of about a year but it seems to me that there is no provision in this Bill to compensate those people for redundancy.

I rather think that that is a defect in the Bill and that we should have some regard for the fact that by legislation we are directly causing those people to be redundant and make some provision—impose it on the employers and make it a joint responsibility of this Fund for the Minister for Social Welfare and the employers—to provide reasonable compensation under this Bill for those who are going to be rendered redundant as a result of the introduction of the Bill.

Senator Jessop rightly apprehended that there was some difficulty in talking about a Bill like this without being a lawyer. Similarly, if we were dealing with health matters I would have a like diffidence in my approach.

If I were properly instructed I could then conduct a cross-examination as, indeed, was my experience in the Fluoridation Act when I knew all about enzymes. Be that as it may, I should like to assure Senator Jessop that in relation to workmen's compensation there would never be a question of juries being involved. It was all done by one Circuit Court judge who found on the facts and it was extremely difficult, we always found in any case on appealing to the Supreme Court, to upset the judges on findings of fact. Bear in mind that in all those cases—and I am glad to say that in my experience they were always found in favour of the workman —juries did not enter it. They only came into it on the common law side where there was a question of negligence arising.

Finally, I am glad to see that one section of the 1934 Act is being amended under section 4 of this Bill. That is the provision that if a man met with an accident due to what was termed "skylarking,"—his own misconduct or failure to observe regulations and by-laws imposed by his employer—then he was not entitled to compensation. I have had the rather sad experience of a young man in his twenties—and on this I would very specially appeal to the Minister because this can only be done by legislation—who met with an accident during his employment. It happened in this way: he was told by his employer to remove sand from a particular place to another place and to spread it along the ground. For that purpose he got a tractor and assembled on it one of those buckets that you could lift up and down. He sat in the bucket which would be filled with sand and then when he got to the particular place would drop the bucket and the sand fell out. This unfortunate lad sat on the bucket and as the tractor was going through the place it went over him. His spinal cord was severed and to all intents and purposes he is certainly a wheelchair case, a paraplegic, who will never earn a halfpenny. Unfortunately, the workmen's compensation code as it stands—and these are defects that I admit exist in the code —provides that it was no part of his employment to sit in this bucket, and he was found not to have been injured in the course of his employment and so not entitled to compensation. He never received a halfpenny.

To some extent that is being rectified in subsection (2) of section 4, but it is only modifying it for cases of the kind in future. I would ask the Minister to look very carefully into this kind of thing. I do not think there would be very many cases of workmen disentitled to compensation because of this kind of circumstances where the injury arises from workmen skylarking or being negligent, in other words being the authors of their own misfortune. The Commission was established in 1955 by Deputy Corish when he was Minister for Social Welfare and the Report came in in 1962. I think we have been very lax in modernising our social welfare code and particularly our Workmen's Compensation Acts, and I would ask the Minister to consider cases of people of that kind and to bring them retrospectively within the ambit of this Bill. This unfortunate paraplegic had the best advice available to him in the form of senior counsel and myself, and afterwards we went to the Supreme Court and, of course, the law was all the other way. Might I say for the benefit of those who think that lawyers are always grabbing that nobody got any fees out of that particular case. I would ask the Minister to consider cases of that kind where a man is hopelessly incapacitated from ever earning a halfpenny and that he should be given in some way the benefits of this Bill retrospectively. The section of the old Act which disentitled him to compensation should have long since been amended. I rather think that there is nobody who will have to pay into this Fund who will begrudge cases of that kind the additional benefit that this Bill is entitled to confer upon future cases of incapacity.

I would say that this particular Bill is not one which anyone can oppose on second reading because of the advantages it has, but I agree that it requires a great deal of amendment.

I welcome this Bill, and having said that I must remark that it has been a long, long time coming. The point has already been made that the Commission was appointed away back in 1955, it reported after a long time again in February, 1962, and now we are here in May, 1966 dealing with the Second Reading of the Bill, which enacts largely the Minority Report of the Commission. The Minister gave us the benefit of a very detailed explanation of the Bill in his speech. We are all very grateful for that. I must confess that in this sort of detailed social welfare measure I sometimes find it very difficult to see the wood for the trees. I wonder, when he is replying, whether he would tell us when this measure, if it is passed as I presume it will be, will come into operation. Usually in a measure like this there is some provision for the law to come into force on a day appointed by the Minister. That I cannot find mentioned in the present Bill even though there is section 40 which deals with power to remove difficulties and which concludes by saying "No order may be made under this section after the expiration of one year after the appointed day." I hope that this does not mean—I may be too suspicious— that after the passing of the Bill we will then have a further delay before the new provisions come to operate.

The debate on this Bill has been the occasion of a very strong attack by Fine Gael Senators on the trade unions for what is termed their unimaginative approach to this question of workmen's compensation. May I say in this respect that though I am a trade union representative I have no personal experience of workmen's compensation. The people I deal with in my trade union are not ordinarily involved in this problem. Neither are they very much involved with the Department of Social Welfare.

However, I must say that my trade union colleagues have mentioned again and again, and I have heard them argue it, that they find the present workmen's compensation arrangements most unsatisfactory. There have been complaints that workers are not very clear as to what they are entitled to and the trade unions tend to make comparisons with the position in Northern Ireland. That may not be very imaginative but the trade unions are dealing with members on both sides of the border and I suggest they are entitled to form their own judgment as to which system is the more satisfactory for their members.

I feel sure Fine Gael Senators will accept that the trade unions act in good faith for the benefit of their members. I was puzzled by Senator Garret FitzGerald who started by telling us that he was appointed to the Commission rather late in the day, that he came out with an open mind and I understood him to say that up to the conclusion of the hearings, in fact up to the actual signing of the reports, he was a bit undecided as to whether he favoured the new system as proposed and which turned out to be the Minority Report, or the retention of basically the old system.

At that stage there was not a Minority Report; there was not a new system. There was a series of alternative schemes devised, and the question was whether we should retain the old system or move to one of those new schemes.

I understood the Senator to say he was undecided up to the conclusion of the Commission and then that he found a case had not been made for the change—that he was not very convinced in favour of the old system but, on the other hand, that a case had not been made for a change. That seems to me to be a rather impartial situation—he was not committed one way or the other.

Today he seemed very much committed basically to the retention of the present system.

I never said one word in favour of retaining the present system.

He went on to say the old system was very good for the workers. I cannot agree with that. As I have said, I have not personal experience of it—I am going on the basis of what my trade union colleagues, who deal with this question every day, have told me. The case is supported by what the Minister said in his Second Reading Speech. This is the kernel of the problem. The Minister quoted the Minority Report to the effect that during the period 1927 to 1959, less than 9/3 of each pound paid in premiums to commercial insurance companies found its way into the hands of injured workmen.

The remedy was to make the £4 10s. 0d. £9. Then they would have got 18/6.

The situation should be that out of every £2 the worker would get 18/6. Less than 9/3 of every pound paid for workmen's compensation found its way to injured workmen. Surely that is a condemnation of the system.

The employer was being robbed.

The economy paid for workmen's compensation and out of every pound paid less than 9/3 found its way into the pockets of the people for whom it was decided to provide, namely the injured workman. Either the insurance companies were having exorbitant profits——

——or, and, a lot of the remainder, the 11/9, was spent in litigation.

I can assure the Senator it was not. Less than one per cent of the cases entered the courts.

Maybe so.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Second Stage should proceed by way of single contribution.

Like the new contribution.

I was making the point that only 9/3 out of every pound contributed found its way to injured workmen.

That is a condemnation of the capitalist system.

It is a condemnation of the workmen's compensation system. That, plus the experience of the unions in dealing with some of their members in Northern Ireland, compelled the unions to say it was a bad system which should be changed to a system of the kind provided for in the Bill and recommended by the Minority Report. Criticisms have been made of the Department of Social Welfare. I qualified my opening remark by saying I have not much experience of the Department in this respect but I have had a few complaints and I must say in all honesty that I found the Department most helpful. It was not a question of trying to rule out a workman. I must confess to my surprise that the officials' efforts at all times were aimed at trying to show how a worker would qualify for benefit. I am told by other union officials that that is their experience also—that the people in the Department are most helpful. There are always doubtful cases and the officials in the Department are most anxious to show how the worker might qualify for a benefit.

I shall now voice my criticism of the Bill. I mentioned the comparison being made with Northern Ireland. I find that the benefits being provided in the Bill are below the level of those in Northern Ireland. For a start, the rate for an individual as provided for in the Bill is £5 15s. 0d. per week. In Northern Ireland it is £6 15s. 0d. Right away, that is a difference of £1 a week. Then you come to the problem of dependants. A man and his wife in Northern Ireland would qualify for £9 5s. 0d. Under the Bill the figure is £7 15s. 0d., a difference of £1 10s. 0d. The difference is increasing. A man with a wife and one child here will get £8 8s. 0d., 39/6 below the level in Northern Ireland. A man with two children here will get £9 1s. 0d., 41/-below the Northern Ireland level. With three children, the difference is 47/6, with four children, the difference is 54/-, with five children, it is 60/6, with six children—it has been known that workers with six children have been insured—the difference is 66/6 per week. The point I am making is that you start at a low level and the more the call on the individual, the larger his family, the worse off he is by comparison with his colleague with the same family in Northern Ireland.

That will not help to end Partition.

The payments in Northern Ireland are not the same as in Britain and I think it is true to say that the size of families in Ireland is larger than in Britain. You have the situation that in this country where a man's family tends to be larger he is worse off than across the water where families tend to be small. This is, I think, a relevant complaint about the measure but what I am particularly disturbed about is that the gap tends to widen. The larger the family the greater the responsibility and the more the difference between the benefits here and in Northern Ireland. I mention Northern Ireland because, as I said, the trade unions involved in this have members from both sides of the Border. Inevitably they make comparisons and inevitably the workers in one trade union ask: "Why can we not be treated like our members on the other side of the Border?"

There is more involved than this. I should like to go back a little from the Bill and talk about it as part of our whole social welfare system. I am in agreement with Senator FitzGerald as to the merits, the benefits and contributions relating to the workers' incomes rather than flat contributions and flat benefits. I think that inevitably in this country we will change and have the system related more to the income of the workers.

We have had a lot of talk in recent years about getting into the Common Market and the workers have been told a lot about the need to increase productivity and the need to adapt in industry. We have been told about redundancy, and so on. It seems to me that the Government has done nothing so far to start bringing the Social Welfare benefits into line with those obtaining in the EEC. It is a condition of the Treaty of Rome that there must be harmonisation of the social welfare benefits in the countries which are part of the EEC. I saw figures which seem to show that we are devoting far less money and giving far lower benefits in social welfare generally in this country than obtains generally in the EEC.

For example, our expenditure per head of the population on social welfare generally is according to figures I have for recent years about £34 per annum. That figure was taken some years ago but I do not think the position has dramatically changed since then. I am using an age group of 15 to 64 years, whereas in the EEC countries it varies from £40 to £105 per annum per head of this age group in those ten years. The general position seems to be in those countries £95 per annum. It ranges from the lowest, which happens to be Italy, to the highest, Luxembourg. The overall position was, speaking generally, about £95 per annum as compared to our £34. The United Kingdom in the same years spent for the same age group £77 per annum, lower than the general position in the EEC, but more than double what we spent in those same years.

If we are to go further and look at the percentages of gross national product spent on social welfare we will probably get a better picture of he situation. No doubt when I make comparisons with Great Britain and other countries people will say that we are not as prosperous as those countries, we have not their resources, and so on. Look at what we spent on our gross national product compared with Britain and the other EEC countries. In those same years the expenditure of gross national product was 9.7 per cent in Ireland, 10.9 per cent in Great Britain, which was not very much more. But, the position in the EEC countries is that the general overall average would be about 14 or 15 per cent. We were away behind. If we could say that that was the situation but that we are tending to improve, it would be an answer to the problem. I do not think that is quite the situation.

Other figures which I have seen tend to show that the gap is widening. In three recent years we see that in the EEC countries the index of expenditure per head of the total population has tended to increase from 13 to 16 per cent. In those same years in Ireland our index increased by 5 per cent. In other words, the gap has widened. In the same years in the United Kingdom it went up by 11 per cent.

This seems to me anyway to show that we are not providing enough out of our resources for social welfare. This Bill, which is dealing with one aspect, is still part of the overall social welfare structure in this country. This has been provided previously by insurance between employers and commercial insurance companies. It will now be provided through the Department by contributions by the employer for people he has employed.

I should like if the Minister in his reply would tell us that consideration has been, or is being given to bring the level of our social welfare into line with the countries of the Common Market which this Government says we will join possibly by 1970. This is 1966 and it is time we started thinking about it. As well as thinking about adapting our industries to the increased productivity and about providing redundancy payments, we should also be thinking along the lines of bringing our social welfare benefits into line generally with the position in the other EEC countries.

As I said it is a condition of adherence to the Treaty of Rome that there should be harmonisation of the Social Welfare benefits of a country that has gained entry to that Treaty.

As I said at the start, I welcome this Bill. I think it has taken a long time to reach us but having reached us, I hope the Minister can, in his reply to the Second Reading debate, tell us what his expectation is in regard to operating the new provisions in the Bill and that we will not have to wait another year or more before these improvements come into operation.

Though in common with all the previous speakers, almost all of them, I welcome this Bill, particularly in so far as it extends the benefits and also extends the scope of social welfare occupational injuries benefit, there are many aspects of it which might certainly have contained improvements. At the outset may I say that the Minister— and I think he will agree—in introducing this Bill was concerned particularly by the Minority recommendations of the workers' representatives on the Commission and I can only agree with him that that, in fact, is how it should be. One should think in terms of the people whose social interest is involved in a measure of this sort but—and this is a great reservation—only if those people are properly informed as to their rights and benefits under the previous legislation and as to what will be their rights and benefits under the new legislation. Having listened to Senator Murphy, I am not too convinced at all that they were anything like properly informed in their recommendations.

First of all, Senator Murphy says that it is, indeed, about time that our eyes were turned towards Europe, that we should be harmonising our social welfare machinery and benefits in line with those of the European Community. I cannot agree more with that. But when he says, in almost the same breath, that the members of the trade union representatives were concerned only with the social welfare benefits of Northern Ireland and that their anxiety was to implement and balance the benefits we have here with those in Northern. Ireland; benefits indeed which are totally out of line with the European Community benefits at present, then I cannot see how we could ask any Minister introducing legislation to do these two impossible and contradictory tasks at the same time. I think Senator FitzGerald—although I did not agree with everything he said—made it reasonably clear that this new system being introduced, and it has many benefits which I hope to point out, is not in line with the European Economic Community at present.

Apparently the trade union representatives went on the basis that the old system was not good and, mind you, they were not so far wrong in this. There were many faults and defects in the old system. But then they went on the basis that any new system which would be introduced would be acceptable without considering in any way what it was in the old system that could be improved, modified or in any way changed to suit the existing needs of this community at present and in the future with a view towards Europe.

I think Senator FitzGerald is right when he says that the trade unions, if one can judge from Senator Murphy's speech, were their own worst enemies in this particular legislation. There are many provisions in the Bill which one would certainly heartily welcome—those provisions which extend what one might call the social benefit of non-manual workers of up to £1,200 and the increased rate of benefit which is available to those who will be entitled under this Bill. These are all aspects of this particular type of social benefit which would, indeed, be highly desirable to anybody who paid even the most casual regard to existing legislation. There was no reason whatsoever why non-manual workers should be excluded from benefit under existing legislation. Neither was there any reason why the rate of benefit should not be increased to be in some way commensurate with the ordinary earnings of the workman. To that extent the Bill is certainly a very welcome one and there are other measures which I shall deal with in time which should also commend themselves highly to the House.

Let it be said that while I agree that the only major consideration should be that of the people who are to benfit —namely the workers—if they think that because only 9/3 in the £ of their contributions was coming back to them by way of benefit that should mean that the existing system be scrapped entirely without any reference to finding what could be done to give them a greater proportion by way of benefit, then I cannot accept their thinking in that matter. Possibly many Senators at this stage will agree and possibly, even out of sheer fatigue and boredom, be prepared to agree that the legal profession particularly were not enjoying a financial bonanza out of the old Workmen's Compensation code. I shall not dwell any further on that.

I can sympathise quite seriously with workmen who feel that to get their just claims they have to go before a court; into an unfamiliar environment, and sometimes be cross-examined which they may feel leaves them at a distinct disadvantage. To this extent I feel that a strong case can, indeed, be made on behalf of workmen who feel their dignity in some cases—and in a small number of cases—is being lowered by being forced to appear as people looking for a benefit to which they are not necessarily entitled. Having said that, I think it is right that I should say, as a member of the legal profession, it happens in a very small number of cases and the remedy for such situations is so obvious it does not necessarily justify the complete abolition of the present system. Just for the record, let it be said that the actual fees which counsel engaged on these Workmen's Compensation cases are entitled to in any case is the princely sum of six guineas. No workman has ever been asked to pay anything; nor is he allowed by law to pay anything by way of legal fees out of a lump sum granted to him. I am not in a position to indicate what the solicitors' fees involved might be but I know that they are also restricted and limited by law. I am quite satisfied they are something in the same region as those I have already quoted.

Wherever the rest of the 9/3 in the £ went to, it certainly did not go towards the legal profession. If that is the only reason for taking the jurisdiction in this matter from the courts, or at least from taking the appeal jurisdiction from the courts it is not a very cogent one because the new system proposes that a Deciding Officer will hear these applications and, in common with many Senators, I express some apprehension as to the procedure under which that Deciding Officer will hear such applications. But most likely to cause apprehension is that, in the event of the Deciding Officer refusing the application, there is an appeal from the Deciding Officer to some equally anonymous Appeals Officer on precisely the same written evidence, I suppose, and which can be treated in precisely the same way only, unless some new facts come before the Appeals Officer. Surely this defeats the whole purpose of the appeal in the first case. Unless a new tribunal is established, in a different manner, with a different mode of procedure, and certainly representing a different Department, appeals have no reality at all.

My great fear is that one of the major consequences of this new mode of administration will be that the people directly involved in these applications and appeals will be Deputies and Senators who spend most of their time getting in touch with and writing recommendations to the Department. Indeed, it must be said in fairness that the Department will reply dutifully and promptly as they have always done, and I suppose one should express a certain amount of gratitude to them. This might not be a bad occasion to cut down a lot of the wasteful work that is being done by public representatives at present, and I have no doubt in the world that workmen whose appeals will be heard before a Civil Service tribunal will be the first to have recourse to their public representatives who will solve all their problems for them.

Senator Murphy mentioned, and I think the Minister referred to the fact that the delays inherent in the present system obviously sometimes operate to the disadvantage of the worker. I cannot see why these delays should occur, because the procedure is a very simple one. On the payment of workmen's compensation being stopped, a person can immediately apply to the court without any formality whatsoever, by filling in a standard form. This is normally done through a solicitor but it will be paid for in any event. When the standard form is filled in the case will be heard within a very short time. It may be said that delays due to the vacations could cause certain problems, but tribunals hearing appeals should be made available to workers at all times throughout the year and not just during the course of the legal year. I see no reason why that cannot be done.

It has been said that an atmosphere of contention and disagreement engendered between workmen and their employers in litigation is undesirable. I would agree with that if it were clear that there is such an atmosphere of contention. Senator O'Quigley pointed out that the vast majority of these cases—and I think 99 per cent is quite a conservative estimate—never come to court. I have just come back from the city of Waterford, a major industrial city, and there has not been any workmen's compensation application before the court this term. That is typical of what is happening throughout the country. If people think that workmen's compensation cases are flooding the courts they have a very wrong impression of the business of the courts at present.

In the small number of cases where there is a need to have them presented before the court, in my experience the employers have always been very sympathetic towards the workmen. I have never seen any atmosphere of contention being engendered between them. In most cases the farmer, or the industrialist, or whoever it happens to be, feels that the workman is entitled to the compensation and that certainly should not create a feeling of contention between them. Experience has proved that.

These are my main reservations in regard to this Bill. If the Minister, the Department, and the trade union representatives, are satisfied that the courts do not act in their interest, then they should consider some other tribunal which would hear these appeals, but it is certainly undesirable that a civil servant should hear an appeal from a civil servant on precisely the same evidence as the first civil servant had. The more openly these matters are discussed the better in the interests of the workers.

Having acted as devil's advocate, I now want to say that there are many aspects of the Bill which have not got the recognition they deserve from many of the previous speakers. When Senator FitzGerald said he could not welcome it in any of its provisions he was being less than fair. I can point to the example of the financial aid for the rehabilitation of injured workmen. That is certainly a very progressive and highly desirable provision. It is the type of provision which had no place in existing legislation. It is a totally new idea and a highly desirable one.

There is also compensation for loss of faculty or any severe injury which does not result in incapacity. Again, this idea is completely new and highly desirable, whatever its source. There is also the extension of the system of benefit to cover people who, as the Minister said, are employed under contract of bailment, such as taxi drivers. Taxi drivers are regarded as self-employed but they run hazards in their daily operations which are probably more serious than many employed people run at present. There is also the supplement of £2 to £4, where a person is permanently incapable of work for attendance at home whether that attendance is by a member of the family or not. May I say at this stage that I welcome particularly the progressive thinking in that last aspect— whether the attendance is by a member of the family or not.

On many occasions it has been suggested that a member of a family who returns from England or anywhere else from gainful employment is not entitled to the same rate of benefit for essential attendance of that sort as a person who is not a member of the family but performs the same service. Of course, there can be no justification for that kind of thinking. Even if a person is performing a service out of filial love, or family loyalty, he is still entitled to be remunerated in circumstances where he is providing an essential service of this sort, particularly when he has given up gainful employment to provide the service. I must say this is a great break-through in this particular context. It may also, I hope, give food for thought to many insurance companies in common law cases where they are sometimes rather slow to accept that this type of claim is always a bona fide claim.

There are many other provisions in this Bill which I welcome but those are some of the more significant ones in that they represent new thinking in the matter. I am sure that the measures in this Bill are certainly very welcome. My only real reservation in connection with the Bill is that the adjudication of the matter has been left entirely in the hands of the Civil Service. I do not say that they do not have the interests of the workers, or any people entitled to benefit, at heart but I say that a more independent approach by a tribunal would be best in this matter. They would be more impartial, if not at the first stage, but certainly on the appeal.

I should like to subscribe to the closing remarks of the previous speaker when he said that the final adjudication should not be left entirely in the hands of the Department. I sympathise with the Minister in his effort to speed up things but I feel it would be a great pity if the final stage of the appeal did not rest in the hands of the judiciary.

I am also particularly worried from the medical point of view because, apart from lawyers, doctors are the most frequently involved in those matters. I was upset to see here that the doctors concerned with this adjudication will now all be members of the Department and there will be medical referees appointed by the Department. Furthermore, I see that outside opinion will only be obtained where this is considered necessary. Therefore, we have not only the situation of members of the Department passing judgment on a claim but there will also be a doctor from the Department and there will be no need to call in a doctor for a second opinion if it is not so judged by a member of the Department. This seems to me to be very much loading the position. While I have no doubt that the members of the Department will do their very best to be absolutely impartial, I cannot see that they would be incapable, over a big number of cases, of making mistakes as far as judging medical evidence is concerned.

I feel, for this reason, if there is to be an appeal, that it should go to the court. I would also hope, if the Minister is going to appoint a large number of medical referees, that great care would be taken in relation to the necessary standards so that if there are to be two doctors involved, one appealing in favour of the case and the other against it, there will at least be a very impartial judgment of a high standard.

It seems to me that the Bill will impose at least £2,500,000 and possibly £3 million extra on the employers of this country. They will be required to pay an extra 1/6d in the case of women and an extra 2/1d in the case of men on the existing social welfare cards. That is a very serious burden on the employers of this country considering that it does not relieve them of their legal liability at common law in relation to their staff.

This is obviously a makeshift, rough and ready Bill brought in here because the Minister realises that the present compensation, fixed in 1955, is far below what is needed at the present time owing to the increased living costs which have arisen in the meantime. When the Minister was introducing the Bill, he lost an opportunity of bringing in a modern system of insurance, even if it was State insurance, which would be related somehow to the requirements of the EEC at a later date considering that that is a target towards which the Government say we are striving.

I would be interested to know how the Minister calculated this £2,500,000 because it appears to be a very low figure to me. Of course, I know in this country at the present time that we have the lowest number of people in employment than at any time in our recorded history. When you take that small figure and the weekly charges that will be made, possibly the figure imposed on the employers can be as low as £2,500,000. I did not, in fact, realise that the number of workers in this country was actually so low.

This Bill, of course, increases the benefits which were provided in 1955 under the inter-Party Government. It has taken the Minister almost ten years now to wake up to the fact that wage levels have necessarily increased and that compensation should have kept step with the wage levels in order that those who are left without their wage earning capacity would be properly compensated. This will be a double cost to the employers because, in addition to the extra £2,500,000 on the social welfare cards, the employers will still have to seek insurance for their common law liability.

I would like to mention, on that point, that common law liability will still have to keep pace with premium calculation as it had before. The only part of it which will not be in the framework of the premium, of course, will be the weekly compensation benefits which it is proposed to provide under this scheme. The risk rate to various employers will be higher or lower according to the risk of accident that exists. In the hazardous occupations this will involve a far higher premium to cover common law liability and, of course, the less hazardous risks will have a lower premium. That kind of scaling has not been introduced here in this scheme under the stamp contribution.

This means, if we take it in more simple figures, that the extra cost to employers will be a little more than £5 per man, approximately 5 guineas extra per man per year on the employer, taking the 2/1d. a week. In the case of women it will be something around £4 per year extra in respect of insurance. There are certain classes of compensation which were being insured at £5 per year which included £4 10. 0. per week compensation in addition to the other benefits for children and dependants and in addition to that, of course, covering common law liability. Now we have this extra £5 added to the premium which they will be required to pay under the common law section to protect themselves and to indemnify themselves against the risk of very heavy claims resulting from accidents under common law which would not be the subject of compensation payable under this Bill. Take a shop where there might be 20 assistants. It is going to be an extra £100 a year or more in the matter of stamp charges apart from the cost of insuring those employees under the common law in respect of legal liability.

The question arises as to whether the insurance companies should be compensated for having this business taken away from them. Certainly when haulage contractors had their business taken away by the nationalisation of transport they received compensation, but here with a stroke of the pen a number of insurance companies which were providing insurance in the payment of weekly compensation in addition to common law liability are going to find themselves left without a very substantial portion of their revenue. They have staffs to pay, and those staffs will now be rendundant when this portion of the workmen's compensation insurance is taken over by the State. There is no mention in this Bill of any scheme for compensation either to the insurance companies who are having business taken away from them or to the redundant employees except under the ordinary social welfare schemes.

It remains to be seen whether, in fact, if the Minister had only decided to make employers' liability insurance compulsory it would have been a better arrangement. I certainly do not accept the figure of 9/3 which was mentioned in relation to the payment in the £ so far as compensation is concerned. I know that some official figure must have been got before the Minister would dare mention the figure of 9/3 in the £ paid out in the form of compensation, but, as Senator O'Quigley has said, it would have been quite easy for the Minister to decide that the figure should be increased, the benefits should be increased, without permitting an increase in the premiums if he was able to satisfy himself that there was a margin there that should go back in the form of compensation to the injured employee. It remains to be seen whether the question of dealing with workmen's compensation claims can be more efficiently and fairly dealt with through the present system than under the new system. I believe that it will cost anything up to £2 million to administer this scheme of compensation when it gets under way. It is quite easy to calculate the number of extra staff that will be required in the Department and right down along the line to administer this scheme efficiently. There is no doubt that the extra cost of administration will take a very big slice out of this £3 million which employers will now be required to contribute towards this extension of the social welfare bill.

I notice that the age limits mentioned in the Bill are 16 to 70, which prompts me to inquire, what about the insurance cover for persons under 16 years who are employed and who have a contract of employment? There are persons employed on weekly wages who are under 16 at the present time. This point ought to be clarified. I know that under the existing arrangement under the Workmen's Compensation Acts and insurance cover employees under 16 years of age were covered by the insurance policies issued to employers.

This Bill gives a uniform scale of benefits regardless of wage levels, and an employee who has been earning £23 a week and living on that scale will only get the same amount of compensation as an employee who might be earning £9 or £10 a week. The principle under previous legislation was that a percentage of the wages, subject to a maximum, was being paid in the form of compensation, but the principle of a percentage of the wages was not carried on in this extension of the Social Welfare Acts. It is only a scale of benefits on flat rates applicable to all who come under the limit of £1,200 a year.

This Bill also abolishes the payment of lump sums to employees who qualify for benefit. Before this employees had the right to sue for the payment of lump sums in settlement of their claims. They were able to go through the courts and have their cases debated and considered and if they had a case that justified the payment of a lump sum they received it, but whether they have or not now employees will not be entitled to receive a lump sum settlement from the Department.

I see, too, that if a widow is receiving a pension here, if she is already qualified for a contributory pension and then qualifies for payment resulting from the death of her husband, the amount will be reduced in order that her contributory pension plus the pension she will receive under this extension of the Social Welfare Bill will not exceed a specified figure. Considering that the contributory pension has been earned as a result of ordinary contributions either by herself or by her husband, it seems very unfair that the total amount she will receive may be less than the combined total of her contributory pension and the allowance that she should get as a result of her husband's death.

Another thing I have noticed here is that the dependants are specified, but some dependants are omitted. The dependants include parents, widows, widowers and orphans, but apparently dependent brothers or dependent sisters are not going to benefit under this scheme.

Under the Bill, if an employee succeeds in getting damages at common law he should be paid the scale of benefits set out in the Bill and he might have to repay five years' retrospective payments out of the damages so secured. That seems to be a very great hardship because if the man succeeds in getting payment at common law he is in a different position from what he would be at the moment when he can get weekly compensation for two or three years and at the end of that time he might take a common law action and if he won he would not be required to refund the weekly compensation payments out of the amount paid to him in damages.

In Britain, only half of the amount is taken back if the employee succeeds in getting damages at common law. Here the penalty is much greater. I am not satisfied with the arrangement whereby an employee has the right to have his case sent to an appeals officer or to a medical referee if he is not satisfied. Generally speaking, the decisions will be made according to more or less rubber stamp regulations and the human factor will be neglected whereas, in the course of law that aspect was taken into consideration.

Debate adjourned.
The Seanad adjourned at 10.5 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 12th May, 1966.
Barr
Roinn