asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that the Social insurances cards of approximately 120 employees of a firm (name supplied) in Dublin which is at present in the hands of a receiver, were not stamped from April, 1968; and that these employees are being refused unemployment benefit at the employment exchanges; and why no inspection of the cards was carried out by his Department from the above date until the time of liquidation of this company.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Non-Stamping of Social Insurance Cards.
44.
It would appear from the records of my Department that some nine former employees of the firm in question have been refused unemployment benefit because of non-stamping or understamping of their insurance cards, but of these, seven were entitled to and are in receipt of redundancy benefit, which is payable at a rate corresponding to 50 per cent of their normal weekly pay. In addition one of the seven is in receipt of unemployment assistance and this would also be available to any of the remainder who are holders of a qualification certificate and who wish to apply for such assistance.
With regard to the second part of the Deputy's question, the position is that the firm in question was inspected by an officer of my Department towards the end of 1968 and the short-stamping of insurance cards observed. As, however, the firm had hitherto had an unblemished record in regard to compliance with its obligations under the social insurances code and as there was then no indication that it was in any financial difficulties, or likely to be, the only action considered necessary was the issue of an instruction to bring the stamping of the cards up-to-date and a warning as to the need for prompt compliance in the future.
Is the Minister aware that because of overconfidence on the Department's part about the high standard of this firm, employees of this concern were, in fact, refused unemployment benefit? When this firm went into liquidation in April of this year, it was discovered that the majority of employees were not covered for unemployment benefit.
It is regrettable that the action was not followed up more promptly than it was but, at the same time, in the present circumstances it is doubtful if an enforcement action would have been completed in time in this case. There should have been a quicker check on whether or not the instructions had been complied with.
It is an alarming situation. If it happened with one firm of 120 employees, it could happen in the case of other firms. Employees could find themselves without any income at all because of the Department's assumption that everything was all right.
The short-stamping of the cards was discovered and the inspector felt that the action taken was sufficient. It was regrettable that there was not a check-up within a short period to see that the law had been complied with in this regard. Generally speaking, the enforcement machinery of the Department is reasonably satisfactory.
Would the Minister consider an amendment of the present law whereby if a firm goes into liquidation there is some protection for the employees? We had a situation in which the employer in this case had many prosperous businesses to depend on but the unfortunate employees are left with no income at all.
I am considering whether some amendment is necessary.
It is long overdue.
45.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware of the hardship caused to many people through the loss of social welfare benefit due to the failure of employers to stamp cards either on time, or at all; and whether he proposes to amend the regulations so that applicants can qualify for benefit and are relieved of the impossible burden of seeking redress against offending employers.
The failure of employers to stamp insurances cards at the proper time does not necessarily result in financial loss to insured persons by reason of inability to satisfy the contribution conditions for receipt of benefit under the Social Welfare Acts. If, however, an insured person should lose benefit under the Social Welfare Acts by reason of an employer's failure to stamp an insurance card the employer is legally responsible for the amount of benefit lost, which the insured person may recover from him, if necessary through the courts. Furthermore, as Minister for Social Welfare I am empowered to take, on behalf of the insured person, the necessary steps to recover the amount of the benefit lost and am prepared to do so at the request of the person concerned.
As the Deputy is no doubt aware persons who fail to qualify for benefit may be entitled to payment under the appropriate non-contributory scheme.
It is not proposed to amend the regulations in the manner suggested by the Deputy.
Is the Minister aware that quite a considerable number of these cases have arisen in the past year? The people have not the means to bring the employers to court and they are left practically destitute by virtue of this fact.
I am prepared to take proceedings on behalf of insured persons in these cases. I am considering how the regulations should be amended to provide more satisfactory protection for insured persons.
Would the Minister consider that a person should be entitled to the benefits under the Act whether he is insured or not, as is the case under the Redundancy Payments Bill?
I will consider that.