HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 220723,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/220723/?format=api",
"text_counter": 359,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Mungatana",
"speaker_title": "The Assistant Minister for Justice and Constitutional Affairs",
"speaker": {
"id": 185,
"legal_name": "Danson Buya Mungatana",
"slug": "danson-mungatana"
},
"content": " Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, may I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for moving the Work Injury Benefits Bill. In many ways, this Bill moves us again towards very quick settlement of compensation cases that may arise, should workers have the unfortunate incidents of work injury. This Bill must be supported by all. Regarding Clause No.7, it puts important obligation on the employer. The employers are given compulsory obligation to obtain an insurance policy by an insurer who is certified by the 1518 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES May 22, 2007 Minister and approved to be capable of carrying out his duties. This is a very important requirement because we have known very many cases where insurance companies have gone under and have failed to pay workers when they have suffered injury in the work-place. So, the provision that the insurance companies must be certified by the Minister is a commendable provision. The insistence that employers must get insurance cover for the workers whom they have employed is also commendable. This will force, amongst many other things, workers or employers to come up to the standards because there will be no insurance company that will be willing to insure a company that has not met certain specific standards of work safety. That will give teeth to the requirements that we have put under previous Bills that we have discussed in this House. Therefore, the proposed Clause 7 is very good. There is also the certainment of the right to compensation by any person who is injured at the work-place. That has been enumerated very clearly in Part X. That is an important provision for the simple reason that outside there, there are very many workers who work in factories that are engaged in production of various things. So, they get injured and in many occasions when their claims go to court, you will find that they are dismissed for one reason or the other. As a result, many workers who have been employed in various industries have suffered loss of compensation. This right is important and it is good. It should be enforced and recognised within this law. Regarding Clause IX which makes it compulsory for all the employers to keep proper records of workers, again, this is commendable. The reason is that in many of these factories, especially the factories where casual workers are employed, I am looking at factories which have mass casual worker employment force, like the industry that deals with makonge . The sisal industry employs a lot of people but when you go to look at the records, they are not properly kept. The first thing that the worker needs to prove when they go to court is whether they are truly employed in that industry. In many cases, a lot of cases of compensation have been dismissed in court because many employers' lawyers have taken the position that those workers were, in fact, not employed by the particular industry. That has caused a lot of suffering and loss to the workers who were injured at the places of work. In general, I support this Bill and I am here to second it. However, it does no harm to ask for enrichment to the drafting of this Bill. It is important to state it here that as the Minister was moving the Bill, he stated very clearly that one of the reasons for moving this Bill is to replace the Workmen's Compensation Act which, he said is outdated and has outlived its usefulness. It has been there for over 20 years. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Workmen's Compensation Act was, in fact, a very raw deal to workers in this country. It was an inheritance from the colonial past that we suffered from sometimes ago. However, the whole Bill did not set aside the rights of workers to seek compensation in court under the normal claims that people file in courts in keeping with the English law. For instance, what used to happen under the Workmen's Compensation Act is that, if someone lost his hand while working in a factory, he was given a ridiculous award. Under the Act, the Government is mandated to pay a meagre Kshs50,000 to somebody who has lost the use of his hand. When you look at that, it was grossly unfair. It was totally not in keeping with the practical realities of the time. Therefore, the Workmen's Compensation Act left it open. If somebody opted to go and make his claims under the normal courts, he or she had the right to do that. I think that was a good thing which needs to be retained in this proposed law. The proposed Clause 16 seems to be substituting compensation of any other form to prevent people from going to court. That may bring a lot of suffering to workers. It may also bring unnecessary suffering to those who are supposed to enjoy compensation."
}