asked the Minister for Health whether, in the case of a person being infected with smallpox or other infectious ailments as a result of the bringing of infection into this country by visitors to the proposed rugby match on 28th April, such person will receive compensation for loss of wages; and, if so, by whom such compensation will be paid.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Infectious Diseases: Payment of Compensation.
5.
The Infectious Diseases (Maintenance) Regulations, 1952, made under Section 44 of the Health Act, 1947, provide for the payment by health authorities of maintenance allowances, in appropriate cases, to persons suffering from specified infectious diseases. Arrangements have been made to add smallpox to the list of specified infectious diseases, should circumstances require any such amendment. The specified infectious diseases in respect of which allowances are payable at present are: acute anterior poliomyelitis, diphtheria, paratyphoid A, paratyphoid B, tuberculosis, typhoid, typhus, dysentery, salmonella infection, scarlet fever and streptococcal sore throat.
Allowances of this nature are paid initially by the health authority and expenditure on them ranks for recoupment under the Health Services (Financial Provisions) Act, 1947.
Would the Minister be prepared, in view of the fact that we followed England's example in regard to smallpox, to increase the allowances so as to bring them into line with those applying in England?
That is quite a separate question.
Does the Minister consider that a maintenance allowance of 22/6d. a week, or, as it will now be— I gather from the Budget Statement— 25/- per week, is adequate compensation for somebody who contracted smallpox as a result of his being employed as a customs officer or worker at a part of entry into this country?
The Deputy is under a misapprehension. These allowances are not designed to compensate any person for an illness which might befall him by an act of Providence? They are merely designed to lighten the burden.
But the Minister does appreciate that there are people who are risking infection because of the type of employment they engage in at ports of entry?
If the Deputy is concerned about the position of persons who are State employees, they do not, of course, suffer any diminution of income because they become ill.
I did not mean State employees exclusively. There are other people who work at these ports and who are not State employees. They may be employed by the State but are not permanent employees of the State.
The Deputy did mention customs officer. So far as other persons are concerned, I think they are in the same position as most other members of the community. They must be subject to the vicissitudes of life.
Or be vaccinated.
Precisely.