asked the Minister for Social Welfare if, in view of the fact that the supplemental allowance for a wife under the Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act, 1953, is not payable to an injured workman who married subsequent to the date of the accident and who is still in receipt of workmen's compensation, he will take steps, if necessary by the introduction of proposals for legislation, to provide for such cases.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Workmen's Compensation (Amendment) Act.
The answer is in the negative.
Was not this Act intended for injured workmen, to help them and their dependents? I should like to know from the Parliamentary Secretary if he is conscious of the fact that there are cases of men who were injured in 1947 and were out for six, seven or eight months? They resumed their usual occupation after six, seven or eight months and were working at their normal occupation for 18 or 20 months. During the period that they were normally employed, they got married. I can refer to the position of one man as a case in point. He had to give up work in November, 1919, after being 18 months engaged at his normal work and drawing the usual rate of wages.
Is the Deputy making a case for legislation?
I am asking the Parliamentary Secretary if he is conscious of these cases which I am referring to.
You could preface any speech with that, and make a case for legislation.
Am I to be told that women and children can be sacrificed for the sake of pounds, shillings and pence? That is what is happening in the case of the insurance companies.
The Deputy's simulated anger will not change the position that he is making a case for legislation.
I am asking if it is the intention to introduce legislation to meet such cases.
I will allow the Parliamentary Secretary to answer that question again.
The Parliamentary Secretary has already stated that, and the Deputy knows it.
I am glad that Deputy MacCarthy is taking a stand to-day. It is very humane of him, I am sure.
I would like that the Deputy would know what he is talking about.
I protest against that remark of Deputy MacCarthy's.
The Cork Deputies should restrain themselves.
If an employee is employed again after drawing workmen's compensation his new employer is liable under the Workmen's Compensation Act, and if the man is injured he becomes a beneficiary under the Act.
That is what I am asking. Are the wives and the children born since men got injured now to be deprived of the supplemental allowance provided under the Act?
They have their legal remedy if their employer fails to insure them under the Workmen's Compensation Act.
There are three cases I have in mind of men employed by semi-State organisations. One is employed by the E.S.B. and another is employed by C.I.E., and they say that they cannot pay under the Act.