Negligent workers to lose eligibility for injury benefits

Workers who injure themselves at the place of work after being negligent and disregarding safety precautions will lose their injury benefit in terms of a bill to amend the Social Security Act, which started being debated in parliament yesterday.

Social Solidarity Minister Dolores Cristina explained that the purpose of this clause was to encourage workers to act responsibly and instil self-discipline. There was no doubt that many occupational accidents could be avoided if basic precautions were taken, she said. One should no longer accept situations where workers disregarded precautions and did not make use of safety equipment provided to them. A change of attitude was needed. Workers involved in occupational accidents who were found to have acted negligently, such as, for example, by failing to wear helmets, safety shoes and gloves provided by their employers, would lose their eligibility for injury benefit, she warned.

Similarly, when employers violate the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Authority Act, the Director of Social Security may claim from such employers any benefit paid to the insured persons related to occupational accidents.

Mrs Cristina said the bill amended various sections of the Social Security Act.

The act would be amended so that more arbiters may be appointed to hear appeals from decisions taken by the Social Security Department, such as those on the reduction of social benefits. Mrs Cristina said there was a backlog of such appeals, and the appointment of more arbiters would speed up the appeals process.

Another amendment involved social benefits to those suffering from cerebellum acacia, which prevented them from working. Such persons would be eligible for a non-contributory pension subject to a means test.

Turning to another amendment, Mrs Cristina observed that in terms of an amendment made in January, a married person who was not separated and not gainfully occupied could not be considered as self-employed in terms of the Social Security Act and could not, therefore, continue to pay the social security contribution.

That amendment had negatively affected the record of social security contributions of married persons who retired early and who, therefore, could not continue to pay their class two social security contributions, potentially seeing a drop in their pensions. This amendment, backdated to last January, would now enable such persons to pay their contributions up to retirement age.

In terms of another amendment, a married unemployed person who is legally separated may opt to have any maintenance paid to him/her by the other spouse to be excluded from the means tests made in accordance with other sections of the Social Security Act.

Mrs Cristina said that another amendment made it clear that those receiving widows' pensions would continue to receive children's allowance independently of means tests. This was, indeed, already the practice.

She said there were a number of collective agreements in parastatal corporations which allowed accelerated increments as employees approached their retirement age. This resulted in the two-thirds pension being worked out on the full maximum, a factor which impacted severely on the pensions account.

The bill was now providing that these accelerated increments, albeit welcome, would not be considered for the purpose of pensions computation.

Another amendment concerned the deductions from the pensions of individuals resident in homes. These funds were administered by the Welfare Committee for the benefit of the same people from whom they were withheld, as well as the coverage of inherent expenses. In 2000 the committee held a fund of just over Lm2 million and Lm2.03 million by 2003.

Initiatives included refurbishment of living quarters and wards in the various residences, as well as social activities. In last year's budget a new provision was made for the committee's income and expenditure to be balanced. Apart from adjustments to contribution levels, the funds accrued from the deductions were to pass into the Consolidated Fund, which in turn would pay all expenses incurred in the committee's activities.

Karl Chircop, opposition social security spokesman, said the time was ripe for a general updating of the Social Security Act so that it could be easier to implement.

There should be an operative roadmap which would ensure, for example, that a new widow would not have to wait for months for her pension, at a time when she was in the greatest need.

He said Labour agreed with most of the amendments proposed, but some other amendments being proposed would make the act harder to understand and operate. This was the only reason why the opposition would be voting against the bill, even in sympathy with all those who would be adversely affected by it. One positive amendment was that those who suffered from cerebellum acacia would be eligible for a non-contributory pension.

Also positive was the amendment on those who had taken early retirement and who could now continue to pay their class two contributions until they reached retirement age.

Also positive was the government's undertaking to pay social benefits to people who, according to their annual income, needed to be exempted from the payment of NI contributions. This would be especially beneficial to single parents who to date were adversely affected because of the alimony they received, which would now not be calculated as income.

On injury benefits, Dr Chircop said the opposition was in favour of steps by the government to deter abuse, in the sense that if the employee was injured due to his own lack of precaution he should not qualify for benefits.

If, on the other hand, the employee was injured due to his employer's carelessness the government would be right to bill the employer for all the benefits received by the employee. This was a matter of accountability. He could only hope that this amendment would be well administered so that there would not be new means of abuse. The test of time would be telling in this sense.

Another amendment that would obviate abuse was the clearing up of the circumstances in which a widow with young children who received a widow's pension and children's allowance, but who slightly exceeded the means test, would be given a small additional children's supplement. The opposition agreed with this.

Dr Chircop said the bill did not specify the extent of accelerated increments that would not be considered in the workings of the eventual pension. It was one thing to have an increment of five per cent and quite another to get 15 or 20 per cent. And what would happen if the individual in his last few years at work was given a long-awaited promotion which obviously involved a salary increase?

In the case of senior citizens, in four years the government would have twice increased the rate of contributions withheld from the pensions of residents in government homes. There seemed to be four categories of senior citizens in this sense: the first and second levels of care, and in each case whether or not they had taken up residence in the homes before or after January 2004.

Unknown to many, the first level of care was for those who were simply staying at a home but with no regular need for medical or paramedical help. The second level was for those who needed extensive or continuous medical help. The new level of the amount withheld, for which mostly the opposition would be voting against the bill, would now rise from 60 to 80 per cent of the senior citizen's pension. Most of the 2,000-plus residents of St Vincent de Paul Residence were in the second level: this would net the government up to Lm40,000 more every month through the Welfare Committee.

The debate continues today.