asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will make a statement on his Department's decision that reading electricity meters under contract is not insurable under the Social Welfare Acts; and if he will comment on the consequences for the ESB and the readers in so far as their contributions prior to this decision are concerned.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Electricity Meter Readers.
14.
I assume the question refers to the employment by the ESB of part-time meter readers and, accordingly, I would refer the Deputy to a reply given to similar questions by Deputies Cunningham and James Tully on 1st February, 1968.
As mentioned in that reply, it was decided by a deciding officer that the employment of a part-time meter reader was not insurable under the Social Welfare Acts and the meter reader concerned has appealed against that decision. Pending the outcome of the appeal, it would be improper for me to make a statement on the decision and premature to comment on its consequences.
In view of the importance of this particular case, would the Minister see if it would be possible to get an early hearing of this appeal? It does appear that quite a long time has passed since the appeal was submitted and there does not appear to be any hurry on the part of the Department to have the appeal heard.
That is not correct. There might not appear to be a hurry but there is. It is important to ensure that all the relevant material governing the decision will be available before the appeal is taken.
Surely the only way in which all the relevant material can be made available is for the appeal to take place? Many people are affected by this, in regard to their entitlement to social welfare benefit, and it looks odd that it should be left on the long finger for several months.
It has not been left on the long finger. I am anxious to get a decision, too, and I am anxious that it should be the right decision and that all the relevant factors should be taken into consideration, because a number of people are affected. It does not necessarily follow that this decision will be a global decision covering everybody in that category because there is such a variety of people involved, working different hours, and so forth. It will cover all people in similar circumstances.
There was a global decision taken on the original one and what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. The Department of Social Welfare were quick enough to say that it applied to all when it suited them.
There is a mistaken view that a decision should be delayed indefinitely when all they have to do is get a decision and if the decision is wrong within the intention of this House, we can put it right by legislation. If there is no decision, the fault continues and there is no means of remedying it. We are the ultimate authority in what the law should be. The important thing to do is to get a decision on what the law is so that we can amend it, if necessary.
There is no anxiety to influence the decision one way or another. The decision might be in favour of the majority of these people, if the decision were that they should pay contributions. It might be different for another section. It is part-time work and some of them actually have other occupations and have cards stamped by other employers. No doubt many are awaiting the decision, and when I say "getting all the relevant factors", I mean that this matter can be brought to a court for a final decision, if necessary. It is important that the decision does take all the factors into consideration.
Does the Minister know——
We cannot have a long debate on this.
This is an important matter.
It may be——
There does not seem to be any great rush and we have only been on questions for ten minutes. Surely the Minister is aware that this was brought about because of the fact that somebody claimed benefit and his Department decided that the person concerned was not entitled to benefit and therefore the rule has been applied by the ESB to all meter readers——
Not all the meter readers.
All of them in this category. Does the Minister know that people who are working at one job and stamping cards for that job do not have to stamp cards for any other job they do during the week? If they work the relevant number of hours, is it not correct that they have their cards stamped even though others doing a similar type of work may not, as their cards are already stamped in another job? I think the Department of Social Welfare have been pretty mean about this.
That is wrong. The Department are not; they only want to apply the ordinary standards applying to any other person in order to arrive at a decision in accordance with the standards laid down.
If this decision goes against those people, will those who have already benefited from the Department of Social Welfare through sickness or unemployment payments have to refund the money to the Department?
That is a separate question and it does not relevantly arise. I do not think we should say too much about this at the moment because it is sub judice and for that reason I should like to refrain from saying very much particularly about these hypothetical questions. I do know that the ESB have already broached the subject of claiming repayments of these contributions which have already been made. These matters will all be straightened out, I am sure, quite adequately.
Eventually.