Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 16 Jun 1966

Vol. 61 No. 10

Social Welfare (Occupational Injuries) Bill, 1965: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question proposed: "That section 31 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. O'Quigley

I want to draw the attention of the House to subparagraph (b) of subsection (1) which provides that:

Regulations may provide for disqualifying a person for receiving injury benefit or disablement benefit for any period not exceeding six weeks, or for suspending proceedings on any claim for, or on any payment of, injury benefit or disablement benefit, if the person fails without good cause—

(b) to submit himself from time to time to appropriate medical treatment for the relevant injury or loss of faculty.

Then we are told in section 33 that:

... "medical treatment" means medical, surgical or rehabilitative treatment (including any course of diet or other regimen), and references in this Act to a person receiving or submitting himself to medical treatment shall be construed accordingly.

What the Minister is seeking in subparagraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 31 is power to make regulations to provide that if a man does not want to submit himself to a surgical operation he will starve him out for six weeks and compel him to submit. That is the power the Minister is seeking and there is no equivalent power contained in the workmen's compensation code which we are now abolishing. The Minister will, of course, say that the power to starve a man out, to starve his wife and his children, if he is obliged to undergo an operation, will never be exercised when the workman has good cause for refusing an operation. We have all seen the workman in the courts whose doctor has advised him to have an operation, the doctor of his employer has advised him to have an operation but the workman says: "No, I will not have an operation, I prefer to put up with my disability, I prefer to stay as I am." If you talk to the workman he says: "I am afraid of an operation, I would not like an operation." The operation may be for, say, treatment of a slipped disc, a common enough injury from which workmen suffer.

If a workman comes and says he has a certain premonition about the outcome of the operation or that for other reasons he refuses to undergo the operation, the Minister says that he will starve him out for six weeks and "We will make you undergo the operation or else you can look at your wife and children not getting benefit for up to six weeks." That is what we are substituting for the existing workmen's compensation code which, as I say, was not the most perfect code but we ought to understand what we are putting in place of it.

There was power under the old code to take into account a man's reasonable fears to undergo an operation or to take medical treatment. Sometimes people will be downright unreasonable because they do not want to submit themselves to an operation. We all know of people who do not want to go to a dentist, a doctor or a hospital. The last thing they want to do is to go under an operation where they give themselves over body and soul to a surgeon. If a man is allergic to surgical operations the Minister says: "It does not matter; my Deciding Officer will starve you for six weeks and will make you undergo the operation. At the end of six weeks if you have not undergone the operation and you are still alive we will pay you compensation."

The Minister will say that you cannot operate this kind of code under the Social Welfare Acts. He will say: "We cannot operate in this impersonal way to the complete satisfaction of the contributors. We could not work in this impersonal way if we did not have this kind of power." This is all reminiscent of the attitude of employers in Dublin in 1913 who, in order to make the employees suffer, did what they considered was good for them. They decided to starve them out. I cannot think the Minister will persist in this power in the anniversary of 1916 when we have heard so much about the work of James Connolly and James Larkin.

Mr. Murphy

The Minister is not that bad.

Mr. O'Quigley

We have been hearing about the Irish Ireland James Connolly died for so that people would not be starved out. I am sure that in modern times he would equally not say, if a man for any cause, because he is entitled to assert his freedom, refuses to undergo the operation: "We will starve you out" or "We will starve your wife and children, paying you nothing for six weeks if you do not undergo an operation." I do not think that is the Irish Ireland we are told we must fight for and for which the men of 1916 and particularly James Connolly fought.

It is well to have a look where we have come from and what the position was in the past. We have a Constitution and I hear great talk about the tremendous advantage it was to this country to introduce the Constitution of 1937. I constantly refer to the Constitution in this House and I constantly refer to the obligation on Seanad Éireann to observe the provisions of the Constitution and that the Oireachtas shall not enact any legislation which is repugnant to the Constitution or any of the provisions thereof. That is a very specific protection given to the people of Ireland by their legislators. They may enact legislation that shall have proper regard to the Constitution.

There was a Health Act in 1947 which caused considerable controversy in this country and Senator Dr. Ryan, who was then Minister for Health, bethought himself and took counsel with his legal advisers. As a consequence he introduced the Health Act of 1953 which is now in decline and which the Minister for Health, Deputy O'Malley, hopes to replace. He brought in this Act to amend the 1947 Act which was being challenged on constitutional grounds. In order to meet the constitutional objection section 4 of the Health Act, 1953, was enacted to preserve to the citizens of this country—and all injured workmen I number among the citizens of this country—the right to refuse to submit themselves compulsorily to medical treatment of any kind.

Section 4 of the Act provides that "nothing in this Act or any instrument thereunder shall be construed as imposing an obligation on any person to avail himself of any service provided under this Act or to submit himself or any person for whom he is responsible to health examination or treatment". That is not the spirit of paragraph 3 of subsection (1) of section 31 of the Bill before us, because this requires a workman to submit himself from time to time to appropriate medical treatment for the relevant injury or loss of faculty, and that includes medical, surgical and rehabilitation treatment. This is oddly at variance with the provisions of section 4 of the 1953 Act. We are now going to compel a man against his will to submit himself to treatment which he may not like, which he may fear, but which his medical advisers or those of the Department of Social Welfare say is good for him. I think that we have reached the ultimate that it is possible to reach in police State type of legislation, and I very much doubt if the Minister can find any other precedent for this in the legislation of this country. The House must reject paragraph (b) and I hope that the Minister will indicate that he is prepared to accept an amendment on the Report Stage to delete this extraordinary power over the injured workman.

Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. K. Boland)

I think that this is a power which it is obviously necessary to have. The whole thing is, of course, governed by the clause "if the person fails without good cause". The extreme type of case to which Senator O'Quigley has been referring will not, of course, arise. In fact, provision is already made in section 17 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, on similar lines. This says that "regulations may provide for disqualifying a person for receiving disability benefit for such period not exceeding six weeks as may be determined under the provisions of this Act" if he fails to submit himself to such medical treatment as may be required in accordance with the regulations. Regulations for this purpose have not, in fact, been made. It is considered, nevertheless, that as failure to submit to medical treatment may retard recovery in some cases and so unnecessarily prolong payment of benefit, power to make such regulations in relation to injury and disablement benefit should be provided. This is practically the same as the position of a person in regard to workmen's compensation, where the arrangement is that the court has to decide whether the workman's refusal to submit himself to medical treatment is unreasonable. The phrase "without good cause" is the same thing. It may not, in fact, be found to be necessary to make these regulations at all, and they have not been made under the Social Welfare Act in respect of disability benefit.

Mr. O'Quigley

Would the Minister not agree that there is all the difference in the world between some judicial person with experience and knowledge and a Deciding Officer who has only before him a file of papers to decide these matters? In the case of the courts I have known of many persons who have been urged by doctors to undergo operation but the man says "I will not" because he would prefer to live with the disability, and workmen's compensation was not stopped in these cases, because the judges having seen the man and got some idea of his background, his mental makeup and his general approach to life, have decided that although it would be objectively quite unreasonable to refuse to undergo treatment, medical or surgical, subjectively it would be reasonable. In this particular section construed as it is drafted "good cause" may be objectively good cause, but not good cause from the point of view of the workman. The Minister says that this particular power would not have to be used except in extreme cases, but of course it is only in extreme cases that a man will say "I do not agree with the doctors, I will not undergo a surgical operation". It might be a person who was supposed to get shock treatment for some psychiatric disorder who will say "I will not undergo that, you cannot persuade me" even though that would be the thing to cure him. The Minister says: "Well, it depends on whether he has good cause or not".

I am somewhat shocked to hear that this provision is contained in section 17 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952. I do not know whether medical or other examination or treatment includes surgical treatment under the 1952 Act. Perhaps the Minister would tell me if that is so. Looking at it quickly from the definition section I do not find that medical treatment under the Social Welfare Act includes surgical treatment. Medical treatment merely means giving a person pills, putting him on a diet, telling him to abstain from this and to do that. That is different from putting him on a table, knocking him out, opening him up and dealing with him. It is quite reasonable to say if a person claims medical benefit or disability benefit on the ground that he is sick that the Department of Social Welfare paying him benefit should be entitled to say: "Wait a minute, we do not think you are sick any longer. We want you to undergo a medical examination." That is perfectly reasonable. People do that every day, and that provision is contained in the old workmen's compensation code.

It is quite a different story to say to a man: "We believe that this pain in the back that you have is due to a slipped disc and an operation will fix it up. You attend at the county hospital, Castlebar, on such and such a date for surgical operation, and if you do not we will withdraw your compensation for six weeks." I think this power is quite different from the power contained in section 17 of the Social Welfare Act, unless the Minister can assure me to the contrary. Even if it is, I do not think that in this day and age, now that we have been alerted to it, we should agree that a man should hand himself over body and soul, against his will, or hand over a young person under the age of 21 years against his will and against the young person's will, to a surgeon to be operated upon.

If the Minister says that power is necessary in order to implement this Bill, that merely goes to show how unsuitable it is to have legislation of this kind administered in the impersonal way so beloved of the people who wrote the Minority Report.

Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan

I support the point made by Senator O'Quigley. We are told that under the natural law a person is entitled to bodily integrity. Surely the person's medical adviser should decide whether an operation is necessary. If this power is availed of in an impersonal way, someone will decide that a particular person has to undergo an operation. Is that person competent to decide what form the operation should take? We know that in these matters there can be differing points of view. In recent months we have seen the conversion of many people in prominent places to the principle of free choice of doctor. They appeared to have been moving forward in that regard, but in this measure we have a complete reversal of it. Surely it can be alleged that if we now accept the principle in this Bill we may later be required by the Minister for Health to accept it in relation to disablement benefit or other State assistance. This is an obnoxious inclusion and the Minister should look at it again.

Mr. K. Boland

As I have said, under the existing power in relation to disability benefit, regulations for this purpose have not been made. They may not be made in this case either, but if they are there will certainly be no intention of compelling a person to submit himself to a major surgical operation if he does not feel inclined to take that risk. This will be operated in a reasonable way, and the position will not, in fact, be any different from the position at present under the workmen's compensation code.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

If the Minister says there is no intention of requiring a person to undergo a surgical operation against his will, he does not require this power in the Bill. It is most undesirable that he should be given a power which he says he does not want, and which goes far beyond what is proper or reasonable. I suggest that the matter should be looked at between now and Report Stage with a view to eliminating the word "surgical".

Mr. Boland

That is not what I said.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 32 agreed to.

SECTION 33.

Question proposed: "That section 33 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. O'Quigley

This is the section which defines what medical treatment is going to be. Under the Social Welfare Act, 1952, a man is obliged to submit himself for some medical treatment, but in this case we are going further and including surgical treatment. I do not care what the Minister has to say about major operations. I do not believe it is correct for the Legislature of this country to give any civil servant the right to say that if a man does not undergo a surgical operation he shall be starved for one week, two weeks, or three weeks. Whether the man has good cause or is being unreasonable, I do not think it is proper that we should vest this power in the Minister to make this regulation.

We hear a lot of talk about the Constitution of 1937—which I believe is not a bad document—but I wonder do the Government and Government Ministers ever pay any attention to it. There was a case in the courts in recent times which clearly laid down that the right to deprive a man of his livelihood should be vested only in the courts of law, that the only body in the State in which that extraordinary power should reside is the courts. That was a case of striking a solicitor from the rolls. In this Bill we are taking it out of the power of employers and employees to make any private arrangement for the payment of disability benefit. We are now obliging the employers to make contributions in respect of workmen's compensation. Therefore, it is quite clear that they will not make any private arrangements.

Having done that, we are leaving it to anonymous civil servants to deal with these matters—and I insist on repeating this phrase because it is very relevant every time this kind of situation comes up—in an impersonal way. We are giving these faceless civil servants power to decide that a man shall undergo an operation. I do not care whether it is dislodging an ingrown toe nail or repairing a slipped disc. I do not care what the operation is. Once you raise a knife to a man who is knocked out on the operating table, you are certainly depriving him of his liberty. I do not think it is right or proper that we should give power of life and death to civil servants in legislation of this kind.

The business of striking a solicitor off the rolls is not nearly as important as telling a man he must submit himself to a surgical operation. The courts have found that that power should not be exercised by the committee of the Incorporated Law Society, and that ultimately that kind of power can be constitutionally vested only in the courts. Here we are giving a much more drastic power—power to decide whether a man shall have food and drink for himself and his children for a period of six weeks—to a civil servant. Do any Senators on the Government side think that is in accordance with the provisions of our Constitution, with our notion of liberty, or with the Irish Ireland for which the men of 1916 and James Connolly fought? I should like to hear them defend it and say how it is in accordance with those concepts.

Mr. Yeats

This is a fantastic hare which has been raised by Senator O'Quigley.

Mr. O'Quigley

I am glad I dragged the Senator to his feet.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

Stop interrupting. We had to listen to you.

Mr. Yeats

Senator O'Quigley talks as if the man was going to be instructed to undergo a major operation. Let us take the case of a man who has a ten per cent disability. He has a broken finger. If that finger is set surgically he ceases to be disabled. Is it suggested that he should be able to say: "I am doing all right. I have got my ten per cent. This is not doing me any great harm. I will carry on with the finger unset"? Is the Senator suggesting that there should not be any power to insist that a man should undergo a simple operation of that kind?

Senator O'Quigley seems to suggest that people have a right given them by God or the Constitution, or both, not to take any care of themselves. He wants to create an even worse police State atmosphere when he mentions the unfortunate 18 year old, the minor, and asks: "Is the Minister going to insist that not merely should the minor undergo the operation but that his parents should agree to it?" Any parent who does not allow his child to undergo an operation is guilty of a criminal offence. People should look after their health and parents should look after the health of their children.

I cannot conceive why disability benefits under the Bill should be paid to a man who refuses to undergo a simple operation such as the setting of a finger. The Minister said that under the existing law almost exactly the same provisions exist and the courts can do what has been set out under the Bill. Senator O'Quigley may say that in practice this is not done but the power is there. Of course, this talk about James Connolly is just so much nonsense. Senator O'Quigley, as he has so often done on this Bill, and as he has so often done on other Bills, makes an incalculable amount of criticism and talks about what is in the original Bill. Some of this is quite nonsense.

Mr. K. Boland

I do not think it is necessary for me to chase all those hares Senator O'Quigley has been raising such as the fact that the efforts of the Oireachtas to protect the community against defaulting solicitors were frustrated. Any reasonable person will see that this is a reasonable provision which it is necessary to have in the interests of the workmen themselves in order to ensure that the funds will not be wrongfully disposed of. As I said, it may not be necessary to make those regulations at all but if it became necessary and it was obvious that wrongful practices were being availed of in order to obtain benefits, this is a power which it is obviously desirable to have.

I would point out that there is a provision in the Convention concerning benefits in the case of employment injuries adopted by the International Labour Office. Article 22 provides for such a power which we are seeking here in this subsection. It appears to me that the more this goes on the object of Senator O'Quigley is to try to make this scheme unworkable, to try to make it a flop. This is, in fact, a desirable thing to have and it may prove unnecessary to make those regulations. We must have power to ensure that people will not refuse reasonable medical treatment without good reason.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Would the Minister just answer one question? What is wrong with changing the wording of the Social Welfare Act: "to submit himself to such medical or other examination or treatment as may be required" to "medical, surgical or rehabilitative treatment"? The Social Welfare Act says "treatment as may be required". The Minister has deliberately chosen to change the wording of the Social Welfare Act within the framework of which this present Bill is drafted. The Minister must have some strong reason for making this change when he says he wants to fit this Bill within the framework of existing legislation. I shall be glad of an explanation for this change.

Mr. K. Boland

This is merely a definition of medical treatment. I am quite sure that medical treatment is interpreted in the same way at present.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

If the Minister is quite sure about that, why is he changing what is already there?

Mr. K. Boland

I am defining medical treatment.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

The Minister is changing existing legislation which says "to submit himself to such medical or other examination or treatment as may be required" to "medical, surgical or rehabilitative treatment". The Minister does not do things without reason. If he wants to change the present wording it means he has doubts about it and he is now proposing to change it in the workmen's compensation. I should like to hear from the Minister why he is changing the existing wording in the section dealing with this?

Mr. K. Boland

I have not changed the wording in the section dealing with the question of disqualification from receipt of benefit for a period. There is provision already with regard to the person who fails to submit himself from time to time for appropriate medical treatment. In this section medical treatment is defined.

Mr. E. Ryan

If the Minister had not put in surgical treatment he would certainly have to do it now having regard to the contribution which Senator O'Quigley has made that medical treatment does not include surgical treatment. I have no doubt that medical treatment includes surgical treatment but, having regard to the fact that Senator O'Quigley does not think it does, it would certainly be necessary to put it in now.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

This is a new debating point.

Mr. O'Quigley

This is a kind of Alice in Wonderland dialogue. I certainly welcome all these interruptions in order to get some clarity into the debate, if the Chair will allow that. The point I want to get clear is that medical treatment means medical treatment. In every hospital there are medical doctors and there are people who are medical consultants. There are others who are surgical doctors and also surgical consultants. Medical treatment and surgical treatment are two quite different things to a layman like myself. I have no doubt about that.

The Minister agrees with me in regard to the interpretation of medical treatment in section 31 but then in this section he defines medical treatment as meaning "medical, surgical or rehabilitative treatment." Those are three different things. It is quite clear that nobody is obliged to submit himself for surgical treatment under paragraph (b) subsection (1), section 17 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952. There is no doubt in the world about that. Nobody wants to waste time on that so I shall not waste any further time on it. The Minister says his main job is to make this Act a reasonable one. My object is to make this Bill a better Bill when it is enacted into law. Senator Yeats had strong strictures to make on me in this and in other debates. There have been debates in this House in which other Senators and I have taken different views from those of Ministers. Some Ministers have had the quick-wittedness and graciousness to see that what was suggested was better. We have had the happy experience in this House of making many amendments to quite a number of statutes. I do not think it is right or proper to say that because we point out these deficiencies our purpose is to obstruct the enactment of this legislation.

The Minister's case for this definition is: "Ah, the regulations will not have to be used." On the other hand, he is illogical enough to say that if this section and section 31 were deleted the whole thing would become unworkable. How can the inclusion of what he says is the exceptional case make the whole scheme workable? What I am concerned with is to ensure that people in the position of injured workmen who may not be very well up but who, like us, resent being pushed about, will not be obliged against their will, which they are entitled as human beings to express, to submit themselves to surgical operations. That is good commonsense, a good democratic principle on which to insist. If people across the House say: "We do not want that; we insist that workmen submit themselves to surgical operation against their will—it is good enough for them", that is the kind of authoritarian concept that bred Nazi Germany and Communist Russia. It is the State, the faceless civil servant, who is to decide what is good for the workman. I do not think the ultimate decision should rest with the Civil Service on the penalty that if the workman does not accept that he can be starved for six weeks. That is a barbaric piece of legislation and I shall never consent to its being enacted.

Mr. McGowan

I can think of a very good reason why the term "surgical treatment" should be included. I have practical knowledge of a case where a workman had his hand injured and from that injury a cyst or lump came on his wrist. In such a case, is the State to be obliged to continue to pay out compensation or should the workman be obliged to submit himself to a minor surgical operation? These are common cases and to meet them there is need to insert this term.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 34 and 35 agreed to.

SECTION 36.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I move amendment No. 61:

In subsection (1), line 29, before "shall" to insert "and every other person who wishes to become a voluntary contributor".

The amendment seeks to give people the power to become voluntary contributors. This seems to me to be a very desirable principle. It has been urged on me by an expert on social welfare but it commends itself to me in any event, particularly in an agricultural country with a large number of small farmers engaged in a hazardous occupation nowadays because of the use of chemicals and machinery.

We ought to give the small farmers the right to opt into the scheme and, by paying contributions, cover themselves against risk at the contribution rate laid down. This is a bare minimum and I had two views on it. Firstly, I wondered whether we should not make provision for the inclusion of small farmers and even, if necessary, to require that the contributions be paid for them. However, I decided that one should move in stages in this matter. The first thing would be to allow them to join and see how many took advantage of it. Later, we could include them compulsorily.

In this country we are increasingly treating the farming community on a par with other workers as regards remuneration, as we know literally to our cost at this moment. Therefore, as a minimum they should be given the right to opt into the scheme. Otherwise the small farmer is faced with the problem of insuring himself. The Minister has made a case for the spreading of risk and the only reason he has given for risk rate is the desirability of spreading the risk to agricultural workers. If the Minister believes in the spreading of risk, which I am convinced is a sound principle where the employer is concerned, then he ought to agree that the small farmers should be given the opportunity of getting into this scheme on a par with the agricultural labourers.

It does not seem right that the agricultural labourers should be in the scheme but that the small farmers should be forced, if they want to cover themselves, to pay high premiums. I am not sure whether the small farmer can insure himself voluntarily or what kind of a premium he would be charged in view of the possibility that the insurance companies might hold that he has some control over his own destiny in the matter. In any event, we should give the small farmers this right. At least it would give us an indication of what kind of demand there is for this. I suspect that in the first instance the number of voluntary contributors among self-employed people will not be great but they should, nevertheless, be given the opportunity so that we can test the market, if you like, among the farming community.

I hope the Minister will agree to this. The small farmer would have to pay his own contribution, of course, and it would be necessary, if the benefits were to be related to wages, which I have proposed but which the Minister has not yet accepted, that the small farmer should state what earnings he wanted to insure himself against and then pay the appropriate contribution rate. If the Minister is not in agreement with wage-related benefits, then the contributions applicable to employers could be applied to the small farmers.

It may be this would cost the scheme a little extra because the relatively small number involved may have an above average risk but as the Minister is very keen to spread risks in relation to agricultural workers, he can have no objection to the small additional burden this amendment would represent. We should take this additional step to cover small farmers who have all the disadvantages of being entrepreneurs but none of the advantages enjoyed by self-employed people in other fields. At least we should introduce this principle and see how it might develop.

Miss Davidson

I agree there is value in bringing in voluntary contributions. I feel it should be confined to persons going out of insurance when they reach salary limits. I feel they should be allowed to remain but I do not think we can accept it being opened up to new entrants, as Senator Garret FitzGerald suggests. I think that would overload the scheme against the workman.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

How?

Seán Ó Donnabháin

It is amusing how we can change the wording of an amendment here. The wording of Senator Garret FitzGerald's amendment is:

...every other person who wishes to become a voluntary contributor

Senator FitzGerald's recommendation confines it completely to small farmers. What does the adjective mean? Does it mean that the farmer is small? Why not use the words: "Owner of a small farm" rather than "small farmer" because there has been misunderstanding over such an expression already? Senator FitzGerald changes the whole text of his amendment to confine it to the small farmer with emphasis on the word "small" whatever it means, forgetting the fact that the text of his amendment deals with the voluntary contributor, or a person becoming a voluntary contributor. Then we have the Labour point of view where the other Senator wishes that it should not embrace the owner of a small farm at all; that it should deal only with a person whose remuneration has increased from the compulsory insurance limit to the salaried person. We are getting terribly confused in our arguments here.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I am sorry that my colloquial reference to small farmers should have disturbed a big Senator but, nevertheless, the case I was making was one which was mainly based on the small farmer because I think the case is strongest there for two reasons. The risk element is high in farming and the owner of a small farm is in the position where, if he is injured, and his livelihood is affected, it might mean much more to his family than somebody with a large farm who may have others employed on it, even though the owner is knocked out. I have expressed the amendment widely because, having thought about this particular case, it seemed to me that there was no particular point in trying to confine it because, if you open it up in this way, you are opening it up to self-employed people in other areas and the great bulk of self-employed people are not engaged in risky occupations and would not think it worth while insuring themselves. It seemed to me that widening it would not add any significant number of people to the scheme and, as there was no particular point in narrowing it down, I left it as wide open as possible. I would have no difficulty at all in modifying the amendment, if any case is made for that.

Mr. Nash

There is much to be said in favour of Senator FitzGerald's suggestion but I would be inclined to widen it a little more. I do not know enough about the economics of the matter to decide whether it is practicable but I can picture many cases— the local blacksmith, a local carpenter, et cetera, working at home, or somebody who calls himself a small contractor not paid by the day but paid by the job; he takes on a little job for £50 or £100. I can see a good deal in favour of having such people insured in a scheme like this. Whether or not it is practicable under this scheme, I do not know. I can visualise also the man who cuts turf for sale. I can see a number of drawbacks in it. The man who is in the more risky occupation will insure himself. The local tailor who is taking no risk, of course, will not want to insure himself. That is the difficulty I see in it but, up to a certain income scale, I can see many advantages in it.

I do not know whether the Minister or his officials could in any way include in this scheme, so as to make it economic, a method of covering all such people up to an income scale of, say, £15 a week or thereabouts. It would be a wonderful thing if it could be done. I can see the difficulties in doing it but, from a social service point of view, there are very many advantages.

Mr. Malone

I should like to support this and recommend it very strongly to the Minister. As far as the small farmers are concerned, how one defines a small farmer is, at times, very difficult. The number involved would be very, very few indeed because there are so many farmers living on uneconomic holdings employed by county councils or contractors of one sort or another who would be covered by insurance to a certain degree. But where a man is fully occupied on his own small holding and has no help whatsoever, if he meets with an accident, it will cause very great hardship to himself and his family. I would very strongly recommend that they be included in the scheme.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford): My view is that it would be socially desirable to try to include farmers living on uneconomic holdings and possibly, as Senator Nash suggested, other self-employed people in our community. I am conscious of the fact that the whole pressure in our society is in favour of organised workers. It is one of the good, or possibly not so good, effects of trade unionism. We seem to forget about the unorganised or self-employed. It would be socially desirable that we move in that direction, as suggested in Senator FitgGerald's amendment, but I am not too sure that it is practicable, because it is much more complex. I should like to hear from the Minister how far it would be practicable because to attempt to do something, no matter how socially desirable it may be, unless it is politically possible and this is politics in its best sense——

Mr. O'Quigley

Hear, hear.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford):—— might do more harm than good. I should like to hear from the Minister, on the experience of his Department, how far one could go, or if there has been any examination of this matter in regard to covering self-employed people whether a blacksmith, a carpenter, a tailor or the small farmer. When I speak of the small farmer I do not want to score a point on Senator Garret FitzGerald. I know he meant well but suppose a man is five feet four inches and has 500 acres he could hardly be regarded as a small farmer. Somebody here asked was it his height. I know what is meant.

Mr. O'Quigley

The Senator is intelligent; he knows what is meant.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford): I do not claim to be.

Mr. O'Quigley

I agree that the Senator is intelligent.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

(Longford): I am afraid in practice, from my experience, that even if you had a scheme in the areas where people would like to see more progress in this regard, people would not voluntarily enter into the scheme. The pressure on money, in my view, in congested districts is always so great for other enterprises or for living one way or another, I am afraid you would not have much response. In, say, Mayo, Cavan, Sligo, Leitrim or Donegal, I do not think you would have much response, even if you had a provision that people could enter the scheme voluntarily. However, I should like to hear from the Minister as to his view and the view of his Department but I am not too sure it is practicable to work it now.

Mr. Nash

A person is entitled, I understand, voluntarily to insure himself at the moment for national health.

Mr. O'Quigley

For widows and orphans.

Mr. Nash

People who do that are, for the most part, people of small income, who are self-employed. I wonder if those people could bring themselves within the scheme.

Mr. O'Quigley

It is people who exceed the limit who are entitled to become voluntary contributors or a woman getting married is entitled. You cannot bring in voluntary contributors.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

At present under the Social Welfare legislation?

Mr. K. Boland

I am in favour of making the social insurance scheme in so far as possible available to self-employed people but there are obviously a great many difficulties involved. In fact, I think it would be practically impossible to make some of the existing social insurance schemes available to them all. Disability benefit and unemployment benefit are two cases in point. The idea behind the payment of disability benefit to insured people is to compensate them for loss of income as a result of sickness but in the case of people who are proprietors of small businesses, whether they be small farms or otherwise, there is not normally a complete cessation of income as a result of the normal type of illness. It would obviously be a difficult thing to extend such disability benefits to them and it is doubtful if unemployment benefit would be practicable at all. I must say, for a start at any rate, that the only schemes which I would consider to be feasible to extend on a voluntary basis to people other than employees are the pensions schemes.

This question then of admitting the self-employed people, as voluntary contributors, to the social insurance is a very difficult one to decide. As Senator Nash pointed out, the whole social insurance scheme is only feasible because the risk is spread. It is only feasible to pay unemployment benefit at the rate it is paid to those people who become unemployed because contributions are also paid in respect of people with comparatively small risk of unemployment.

In a case such as this it is, of course, likely that the only people who would opt to become voluntary contributors are those who are in the more risky occupations. If that were to occur on any kind of large scale it could upset the whole scheme. Obviously the same difficulty would apply to unemployability supplement or injury benefit under this Bill as to disability benefit in the present social insurance scheme and we would, I think, in considering whether self-employed people could be admitted or not probably come down to consider whether we should make disablement benefit only available to them.

In any case it is a difficult thing, which could not be considered at this stage. The only feasible way would be to consider the question of admitting self-employed people to the social insurance scheme as a whole. Apart from anything else, the amendment here does not deal with the question thoroughly at all. It deals only with the admission of contributions but there would be a lot of other consequential amendments involved before these people would, in fact, be entitled to benefit. It has not been proposed to amend the general conditions for benefit, which is "an insured person suffers injury by accident arising out of and in the course of his employment being insurable (occupational injuries) employment." I do not know how Senator Garret FitzGerald and Senator O'Quigley would propose to get over that but it would be obviously particularly difficult in the case of small self-employed people. It would be particularly difficult in their case to distinguish between injuries arising from occupational or non-occupational accidents. It is a very difficult question and cannot be decided easily at all.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I thank the Minister for his reasonable reply. On the contribution side, I do not think the difficulty is the fundamental one. I do not think that would constitute an excessive burden on the Fund. It could be met by having a somewhat higher rate of contribution for voluntary contributors. On the other hand, I do see the difficulties in the implementation of the provision of benefits in these cases. The Minister has made some good points in regard to that and, therefore, I can see that that in my amendment would give rise to many problems.

Unfortunately, that does not go far enough to solve things. I should like the Minister to look at this further. Probably he has an open mind on it. One thing worries me. I got the impression that the Minister was looking at it in the context of opening the whole social insurance scheme to self-employed people. It may get held up by all the other problems that arise in regard to social insurance but I should like the Minister to look at this on the merits. This "occupational injuries" provision differs from the other provisions of social insurance. One can see the long term desirability of pensions for self-employed people. There are good economic reasons for this. The effect of bringing them in on savings grounds and on finance for capital development grounds would be very good indeed, not to mention the social benefits that would accrue.

That is a long term policy we should take and I see on the unemployment and disability side you cannot bring self-employed people in. This is a separate thing and I think the Minister ought to look at this matter on its merits and he should not wait until the major development of extending social insurance to self-employed people becomes feasible. A change in the Bill to bring in voluntary contributors is something that could be undertaken in its own right without a complete review of the social welfare code.

Mr. K. Boland

I am prepared to consider this on its merits, but there would be no question of doing it during the passage of this Bill.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I understand that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I move amendment No. 62:

To delete subsections (2) and (3) and substitute the following subsection:

"( ) Contributions to the scheme shall be made by the employers on behalf of insured persons in their employment and by voluntary contributors on their own behalf, the amounts being so determined as to ensure that the Fund will be actuarially sound, and that the amounts payable on behalf of employed contributors have regard both to the element of risk involved in the particular occupation followed by the employed contributor and also to the level of his weekly earnings, and the Minister shall from time to time make regulations—

(a) determining the level of these contributions,

(b) providing that contributions from employers may be levied either in relation to each individual employee or on the basis of total payroll, and

(c) requiring that voluntary self-employed contributors shall state the level of weekly earnings in respect of which occupational injuries benefits shall be payable."

—Senator Garret FitzGerald, Senator John B. O'Quigley.

In its present form the amendment would obviously be unacceptable because it includes "voluntary contributors" which was turned down earlier. I merely suggest that it should be discussed separately because it gives the opportunity to raise the point that the contributions to this scheme ought, in my mind, be related to the risk element.

On Second Stage I explained why this was desirable. It is a widespread practice throughout the world to do this because of the desirability of giving some incentive to employers to minimise risks. In fact, in something like 48 out of 73 countries there is a risk element in the contributions which is designed to discourage risk taking by employers. The reason it is there is that one-third of the countries of the world believe this is desirable. The reason it is not here is that the Department of Social Welfare is still operating on this antiquated flat rate contribution. Contributions to schemes should be on a more flexible basis related to wages on the one hand and in this particular instance related to the risk involved. I feel that the Minister should consider this and that he ought to be prepared to vary these contributions in relation to risk.

Mr. K. Boland

I think that the elimination of risk-rating is one of the most important and most praiseworthy features of this Bill. There may be a majority of countries which still have risk-rating but they probably have it in a lot of cases because of the same reason that we have had it up to now, that they have not got around to removing this feature which I think is an objectionable one. Not all risks are avoidable. They are not all completely within the control of the employer to avoid by any means. Some occupations by their very nature contain greater risks than others, and some of these are among the more important industries to the economy of the country. It is desirable that industries such as agriculture should not have to carry an excessive overhead. The principle of spreading the risk is a very desirable one from the point of view of the economy as a whole.

The question of ensuring that proper steps are taken to avoid unnecessary risks can be dealt with in other ways. There are, in fact, ways in operation for ensuring that avoidable risk is guarded against. There is a complete divergence of opinion here. Senator FitzGerald believes that risk-rating is desirable. I believe that it is undesirable.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I should like to reply to the Minister on one point. He says that those countries that have risk-rating have it because it is a feature of an old system like our insurance system which is going out, and happen still to have it. This is not the case. If the Minister had read the relevant tables in the Report he would have known that of the 48 countries which have a system involving a risk element there are, in fact, 28 which have State schemes and have the risk element incorporated in the State scheme. It is only in the minority of cases that these schemes are run by commercial insurance companies. The majority of countries with State schemes, whether under a State Department or under State-sponsored bodies, have a risk element because it is believed widely and by a big majority of countries to be desirable.

The Minister's argument about spreading risks is irrelevant in cases like this. Spreading the burden of social insurance is something about which there might be a case, but not that the risk is avoidable, and, therefore, the establishment of a relationship between premium and risk discourages taking risk. When the contingency is one which is unavoidable and not something that anything can be done about there is no point in having such an arrangement. Where risk can be avoided anything which encourages people to avoid it by making it expensive to take risks with other people's lives or health is desirable and is thought by the majority of countries in the world to be desirable, is in the majority of State schemes, and this taking it out of our system is completely retrogressive.

Every one of the EEC countries has this risk element, and because the Department of Social Welfare is supposed to be, under the Taoiseach's direction, working towards the harmonisation of our social welfare system with that of the EEC countries, which admittedly have certain different features in their schemes but have one thing in common, that they all have a risk element, the Minister will have to come back in a couple of years when we join the EEC—as we are likely to do, if the Government improves its diplomatic efforts in Europe a bit, in all probability in between two and four years— the Minister will have to come into this House and ask us in harmonising our legislation with that of the Community to bring back the risk element into this scheme. It seems pointless to take it out for a couple of years contrary to the direction which all Departments have to work towards the harmonising of our social legislation with that of the EEC, and then to have to put it back again.

The Minister's arguments in favour of this are most unconvincing, and why he thinks he should remove something which most countries have adopted, only to come back in a couple of years and put it back again, I do not understand. It seems to be very silly and a complete waste of the time of the House to have to come back again and tell us that we must have it back in again.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sections 36 and 37 agreed to.

SECTION 38.

Miss Davidson

I move amendment No. 63:

In subsection (1), line 24, to delete "five" and substitute "three".

This amendment proposes that we substitute three years for five which is in the Bill at the moment in assessing the damages, which would be giving a fairer rate of compensation, particularly in view of rising wages in recent years.

Mr. K. Boland

This was raised with me in the Dáil on this section also. I think that to take a period of five years into account is quite reasonable and practicable and I do not think that any case has been made to make it any less. It is obvious that some account should be taken of benefit that would be available to a workman under this legislation, and I think that five years is a very reasonable period.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 38 agreed to.

SECTION 39.

Acting Chairman (Mr. D.J. O'Sullivan)

Amendment No. 64 was taken with amendment No. 5.

Amendment No. 64 not moved.

Section 39 agreed to.

SECTION 40.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I move amendment No. 65:

In subsection (1), lines 10 to 12, to delete all words from and including "and" in line 10 to the end of the subsection.

My worry is simply about the words at the end of subsection (1) of section 40 giving the Minister power to do anything he likes in regard to this Bill. Of course, the Minister should have power to make all the necessary regulations to bring it into operation. There is no problem about the first five lines of this subsection, which provided that he may by order do anything necessary to bring the Bill into operation. But the subsection enabling him to make any order modifying provisions of the Acts so far as may appear necessary or expedient for carrying the order into effect makes nonsense of legislation. The purpose of legislation is to specify what can be done by the Minister, if necessary under regulations, but the regulations must implement the Act and have regard to its provisions. I do not think that the Minister should have power to modify the provisions of the Acts wherever it is necessary or expedient. I suggest that these words should be deleted as they are not only unnecessary but inappropriate in a Bill of this kind.

Mr. K. Boland

The wording of section 40 is in line with the wording of section 71 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, and of section 22 of the Social Welfare (Amendment) Act, 1960. It gives a similar power in relation to bringing this Act into operation. If it is necessary to make any order under this section, under the provision of subsection (2) the order will be laid before each House of the Oireachtas, and it will be open to Senators to move a resolution for the annulment of the order.

I do not visualise a necessity to make any change, but it is conceivable that it might be necessary, and if it is considered necessary there is this power —if I appear to be doing anything objectionable—to move to have the order annulled. I think that is sufficient safeguard. It is quite a usual power to seek. It is unusual to have to operate it.

Mr. O'Quigley

There are difficulties that arise in the application of statutes of this kind when they have to be welded into existing schemes. That kind of difficulty did arise under the Social Welfare Act, 1952, but there is a more appropriate device and one which I think is more in accordance with the authority and standing of the Legislature. If the Minister wants to make an order to modify any of the provisions of an Act there is a speedier way of doing it, by bringing in a draft order before each House of the Oireachtas and having it approved. That was done under an earlier section of the Social Welfare Act, 1952. I think it is more in harmony and more consonant with the dignity and authority of the Houses of the Oireachtas. As we all know orders and regulations which are laid before the Houses for 21 days seldom engage the same kind of attention and inquisitiveness as an order made in draft form. If the Minister has nothing to fear or hide —and I am sure he will not have— there seems to be no reason why he should not bring in a draft order and have it confirmed.

Mr. K. Boland

What the Senator is suggesting would impose a certain amount of delay which might be unnecessary. In the case of my proposal if Senators or Deputies felt that what I was seeking to do was something that should not be done, they could move to annul the order, whereas if what I was seeking to do was unobjectionable there would be no need to go through that procedure. I think this is a reasonable thing to ask for, and it is unlikely that any order which will make any change will need to be made.

Mr. O'Quigley

I think it is quite unreasonable. Subsection (6) of section 4 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, provides:

Where regulations are proposed to be made for the purposes of subsection (4) or subsection (5) of this section, a draft thereof shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and the regulations shall not be made until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.

This is a question of maintaining the authority of Parliament. If the regulations are to be of the kind we anticipate, I cannot see any reason why they should not be brought in in that form.

This emphasises the need for this House to address itself in the very near future to establishing a statutory instruments committee quite different from the one in existence at present to look at the substance of the various regulations that are being made. One can see the kind of regulations that will be made under this Act. They will affect the lives and wellbeing and, indeed, the liberty of injured workmen. It is time the Oireachtas addressed itself to carrying out in a proper way the duties which it imposes upon itself, and had a proper look at these regulations.

Mr. K. Boland

The provision made in this regard in the Social Welfare Act, 1952, was in section 71. It is exactly the same provision that is being made here. I understand that, in fact, three orders were made under that section. I do not think it is reasonable that we should be asked to go through this procedure of bringing it before each House of the Oireachtas unless it appears to be necessary to do so. If Senators consider it necessary they can insist on it being brought in.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

It seems to me that the Minister can make a case for not bringing draft orders before the Houses of the Oireachtas where the orders are to be made specifically under the provisions of an Act and where the Act contemplates specifically what is to be in them, but I do not think there is a case where the Minister seeks power, as he does here, to make orders which would modify the provisions of the Act. In this section the Minister is taking power to legislate. If the Minister would be prepared to withdraw the word "modify" and limit this to orders implementing the Act as we have passed it, that would be reasonable. He cannot have the power simultaneously to modify the Act as he likes, and secondly to say that the orders shall be brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas. He cannot sustain those two propositions simultaneously without taking away from the rights and privileges and duty of the Houses to legislate. The Minister should reconsider one or the other. I certainly endorse what Senator O'Quigley has said about the need for a committee to examine the substance of the orders. We are negligent in that respect.

Mr. E. Ryan

There is such a committee.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

To examine the substance?

Mr. E. Ryan

It has very wide powers.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I may be wrong but my understanding is—if Senator Ryan is referring to the Committee on Statutory Instruments—that that committee confines itself to seeing that the orders are in conformity with the legislation under which they are introduced. It does not examine the substance of the orders. That is my understanding of how the committee works. It does not concern itself with the substance of what is in the orders but with whether they are in conformity with the legislation.

Mr. E. Ryan

The committee does not confine itself as closely as that. Among other matters it considers whether regulations provide for what was visualised in the Act. A committee of this kind cannot examine whether the legislation passed by the Houses is good or not. It is for the Houses to decide whether the legislation is good or bad.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

That is not the point. An order may be made which may be technically within the competence of the Minister to make under the Act. It may be an order of the kind that is visualised by the Act. Nevertheless, there may be something in that order which, in the way it has been decided, is in some way objectionable or could be regarded as objectionable. It should, therefore, be brought before the Houses of the Oireachtas to be debated. At the moment if Senators do not examine those orders individually in the way they should there is a defect in our legislative system which should be cleared up. The best way to do it would be to have some committee which would delegate those orders among Members to look at and examine. However, that is another day's work. My concern here is with the Minister's attitude and the administrative power he has regarding those orders. That there is no provision for this in the 1952 Act is no excuse for not having it in this Bill.

This shows that some bad legislation exists in the country. Certainly, some bad legislation was introduced in the 1950s. I do not know which Government was in power then. It was a period of rather low ebb for our Parliamentary institutions and our legislation was not very good but we should not be stuck with it. Some of this legislation was introduced by the Fianna Fáil Government and some by the inter-Party Government, but we should not be tied to it now.

Mr. K. Boland

If any orders do propose to modify the provisions of the Act, it is open to Senators to move to have the orders annulled. That is obviously sufficient safeguard to give and it is unlikely that any such order will be made.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

If that is so, why is there provision in so many Acts that orders shall be brought before both Houses of the Oireachtas? The practice is there and it is an important way to ensure that those orders contain what it is intended they should. If the Minister is prepared to introduce an amendment on Report Stage to say that where such orders modify the provisions of the Act they shall be brought before both Houses of the Oireachtas, I would be perfectly happy with it.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

I agree with what has been said by Senator FitzGerald here. I should like to express that opinion to the Minister.

Mr. K. Boland

I think the provision made in the Social Welfare Act, 1952 was adequate and it is suitable for this purpose also. The provision was that in respect of any difficulty arising in bringing in the operation of this Act that this system which is proposed here is to operate.

Mr. O'Quigley

I am afraid the Minister is not like his Department He is not flexible.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 40 agreed to.

NEW SECTION.

Miss Davidson

I move amendment No. 66:

Before section 41, to insert a new section as follows:

"(1) There shall be an Occupational Injuries Advisory Council which shall consist of a chairman appointed by the Minister and such number of other members so appointed as the Minister may determine, including an equal number of persons appointed by him after consultations with the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and such other organisations as he thinks fit, to represent employers and insured persons respectively.

(2) Where the Minister proposes to make regulations for the purposes of this Act (or to apply regulations already made for other purposes to claimants for benefit under this Act) or to make regulations relating to benefit or the prescription of diseases under this Act, he shall (unless it appears to him that by reason of the urgency of the matter it is inexpedient so to do) refer the proposals, in the form of draft regulations or otherwise, to the Council for consideration and advice; and the Minister may from time to time refer to that Council for consideration and advice such questions relating to this Act as he thinks fit."

This amendment asks for the setting up of an Occupational Injuries Advisory Council. This is a very complex piece of legislation and many controversial matters will no doubt arise on it. The setting up of such a Council is of such obvious value in the drafting of regulations, advising the Minister on various questions arising out of this Act that there is no need for me to say anything on what is proposed. The proposed new section is entirely self-explanatory. An Advisory Council of the kind sought has already been set up by the Minister under the Mines and Quarries Act. This is the type of Council that we now seek in regard to this Bill.

Mr. Crowley

I should like to support Senator Miss Davidson on this particular matter. If there was ever a case for the establishment of an Advisory Council of this type, the legislation we are considering at the moment is outstanding in that respect. Apart altogether from its usefulness, it is obvious that the Minister and his Department would be well advised to give this proposal very serious consideration. It is very necessary in this very complex Bill. Such an Advisory Council would be of very great value to the Department. I want, therefore, to urge that the Minister should give this proposal his very serious consideration immediately and I want to support Senator Davidson in the amendment which suggests that a new section should be written into the Bill for this purpose.

Mr. K. Boland

We have not got this system of Advisory Councils in regard to other matters under the existing Social Welfare Acts into which this scheme is being incorporated. The arrangements under section 3 of the Social Welfare Act, 1952, whereby any regulations that are made are laid before each House of the Oireachtas, and may then be annulled by resolution of each House, has proved satisfactory. In view of that there is no need for an Advisory Council such as this.

Mr. Crowley

The Minister seems to have no need whatever for any sort of advice from any side of the House. It is no answer to this proposal, with all due respect to the Minister, to suggest that it is adequate that those orders should be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. The Minister's reply to this is contentious.

Mr. O'Quigley

Surely if we are going to abandon the risk rating it becomes even more desirable and necessary to have an Occupational Injuries Advisory Council which will advise upon the kind of things that will reduce the incidence of accidents to workmen. I would have thought that was axiomatic. I consider it would be most advisable to have the type of Council suggested in the amendment.

Mr. K. Boland

In effect, neither the majority nor the minority recommended this. In paragraph 417, page 143 of the reports, the question of an advisory body was dealt with and the concluding sentence reads:

The majority, however, were of opinion that the present arrangements whereby the Minister for Social Welfare is responsible to the Oireachtas for the workmen's compensation scheme works satisfactorily and were not in favour of the establishment of such a Board.

The minority recommended the setting up of an advisory body in the event of the present system being continued but considered that regular, periodical reviews of the workmen's compensation code were essential if we were to keep abreast of developments elsewhere. They recommended such a body only in the event of the workmen's compensation system being retained but not in connection with the social insurance (occupational injuries) scheme which they put forward. This is a matter which was considered by the Commission and neither the majority nor the minority were in favour of it.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Sometimes when I hear the Minister I cannot believe my ears. The Minority Report recommended what should be done in relation to the continuation of the present system—they were not talking about the social insurance scheme, the Minister said. Let me read what the Minority Report says, for the Minister's information. Paragraph 417 sets out the functions of the Advisory Council established in Great Britain and continued:

The legislative changes made in the present system here since the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1934, came into operation stemmed from political pressure which had been brought to bear to secure increases in the rates of compensation payable. These measures were availed of to introduce a few other amendments to the Code. We believe that regular periodical reviews of the Workmen's Compensation Code are essential if we are to keep abreast of developments here and elsewhere. We think that an Advisory Board could provide an extremely useful service to the Minister for Social Welfare, particularly in view of any developments in the field of workmen's compensation which may emerge in the event of this country's entry into the European Economic Community. We recommend, therefore, that an Advisory Board should be established as was suggested by some members in paragraph 417 of the Majority Report.

What does the Minister mean by telling us that neither Report recommended this? It is recommended specifically. Am I wrong? Have I misread the piece? I am open to correction by the Minister.

Mr. K. Boland

A full reading of the Minority Report will make it clear that this was their recommendation in the event of the workmen's compensation system being continued. Their recommendation for a social insurance (occupational injuries) scheme does not contain any reference to an Advisory Council.

Mr. O'Quigley

It is utterly hopeless. The Minister will not be advised by a Commission, by the trade unions, by Senators. He will be advised only by himself.

Mr. K. Boland

The Commission submitted a social insurance (occupational injuries) scheme which does not provide for an Advisory Body.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

The Minister quoted from the Report completely irrelevant things to suit his own purpose. He did the same earlier in relation to the Minority Report. He ignored a relevant passage set out in capital letters and I had to set out to prove the point. Now he turns around and says this is not in the scheme, that it is only in the Minority Report.

Mr. O'Quigley

In any event, we are not tied by what is in the Report.

Mr. K. Boland

I am not asking that Senators should be tied.

Mr. O'Quigley

The Minister has not given us a reason why there should not be an Advisory Council.

Mr. K. Boland

I have said that any regulations must be laid on the Table of the House and can be annulled by a motion of either the Dáil or Seanad.

Mr. O'Quigley

That is about as relevant as telling us that Europe is west of Asia.

Question put: "That the new section be therein inserted".

The Committee divided: Tá, 10; Níl, 21.

Tá

• Crowley, Patrick.
• Davidson, Mary F.
• FitzGerald, Garret M.D.
• Fitzgerald, John.
• McDonald, Charles.
• McQuillan, Jack.
• Malone, Patrick.
• Murphy, Dominick F.
• O'Quigley, John B.
• Rooney, Éamon.

Níl

• Boland, Gerald.
• Brennan, John J.
• Brown, Seán.
• Eachthéirn, Cáit Uí.
• Egan, Kieran, P.
• Farrell, Joseph.
• Fitzsimons, Patrick.
• Flanagan, Thomas P.
• Honan, Dermot P.
• Killilea, Mark.
• McGlinchey, Bernard.
• McGowan, Patrick.
• Martin, James J.
• Nash, John Joseph.
• Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
• O'Kennedy, Michael.
• Ryan, Eoin.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Patrick W.
• Teehan, Patrick J.
• Yeats, Michael.

Tellers: Tá: Senators Crowley and J. Fitzgerald; Níl, Senators O'Kennedy and Farrell.

Question declared lost.

Mr. O'Quigley

A great triumph for the workers!

Section 41 agreed to.

SECTION 42.

Question proposed: "That section 42 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. O'Quigley

I want to ask the Minister why it is that here, where we are dealing with a Bill which everybody will refer to as the Occupational Injuries Act—the whole talk is about occupational injuries—we must have this cumbersome title—Social Welfare (Occupational Injuries) Bill, 1965? Every regulation—and there will be a considerable number of them made under this Bill—will be headed—Social Welfare (Occupational Injuries) Act, 1965—Medical Treatment Regulation, 1965 and then we will go on next time and it will be —Social Welfare (Occupational Injuries) Act, 1965—Medical Treatment (Amendment) Regulation of 1965 and this is the kind of waste of time and cod we go on with. This is an Occupational Injuries Act and that is what we should call it.

Mr. K. Boland

There are a lot of provisions in the Social Welfare Acts which apply to this Bill and without it this could not operate. It is, in fact, an amendment or extension of the existing Social Welfare Acts and general provisions in the Acts dealing with such matters as payment of contributions, claims, procedure, decisions and appeals, overlapping benefits et cetera, all these have to apply to this Act. If this Act was to stand on its own all these things would have to be in it.

Mr. O'Quigley

The Minister is again talking like a lawyer. In this chamber we should talk like politicians and legislators. Of course, any lawyer can, at any time, give dozens of reasons and elaborate why a certain thing must be this way and why it should not be that way. We ought to take the view that here we are enacting a Bill which will provide occupational injuries benefit. We should call it that. Of course, I know it has to be welded on to the social welfare code. That can easily be achieved by saying that this Act shall be construed with the Social Welfare Acts, 1952 to 1965 and any lawyer will be quite happy because he knows that the Occupational Injuries Act of 1965 is welded on to the Social Welfare Acts of 1952 to 1965. But it is a waste of time for everybody writing out all the numerous forms which will be printed in regard to the Social Welfare (Occupational Injuries) Bill, 1965 because nobody will ever refer to it as such. Everybody will refer to this Bill and the benefits to be gained under it as the Occupational Injuries Act of 1965. Why we should waste time with some kind of legal point that is of no value from the point of view of operating it beats me.

Mr. K. Boland

If I am talking like a lawyer here, the sooner I get back to the Dáil the better. The reason why this was done in fact was that my lawyers did it, not I.

Mr. O'Quigley

The Minister has another lawyer telling him now that it is not sufficient.

Mr. K. Boland

I have to go by the lawyers on my side.

Mr. O'Quigley

Parliament can decide what it likes.

Question put and agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 22nd June, 1966.