asked the Minister for Social Welfare if, in view of a reply of 29th October, 1970, in regard to the question of ensuring the prompt stamping of employees' insurance cards and having regard to the statement made in Dáil Éireann on his behalf on 22nd July, 1970, he will make a statement in connection with the solution in sight on 22nd July, 1970, stated to be reasonably satisfactory to all parties concerned and which would not involve legislation.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Stamping of Insurance Cards.
17.
With a view to enlisting the aid of insured persons themselves in bringing irregularities in the stamping of insurance cards to the notice of my Department in good time a provision was included in the Social Welfare (Collection of Contribution) Regulations, 1967, requiring every employer having the custody of the insurance cards of an employed contributor employed by him, to produce the card to the employed contributor within four weeks before the expiration of the period of currency of the card. It was a requirement also that the employee should sign the card and this would have given him an adequate opportunity of examining the card and if it were not properly stamped of taking the necessary steps to bring the matter to the notice of my Department. Any complaint would immediately be investigated by my Department and steps taken to enforce proper stamping of all insurance cards held by the employer concerned. In this way it was hoped to minimise the incidence of loss of benefit to insured persons through non-stamping or late stamping of insurance cards.
However, this regulation was found to penalise employers of good standing, and particularly those employing very large numbers, and consequently its enforcement was not considered advisable. It is now being amended in order to give the Minister power to restrict application to those cases where it would appear that the circumstances so warrant.
The making of a regulation is also contemplated which will enable contributions to be credited in certain cases and subject to certain conditions yet to be determined, where non-stamping has occurred.
Why did the Minister, or somebody for the Minister, say on 22nd July, in answer to a question in this House, that a solution was in sight which seemed to be reasonably satisfactory to all parties and would not involve legislation if, in fact, he was talking about a regulation introduced in 1967 which was known to be ineffective? Why was something not done in the meantime? Deputy O'Connell's question and my following question are concerned with the failure of the Department of Social Welfare to recover the amount due from the employer, which they are entitled to do when the unfortunate employee is not in a position to do it. Can the Minister now say if anything is being done to try to improve that position? Would he agree that the proper thing is to ensure that the same regulation as operates in regard to occupational injuries — where the State pays and recovers from the employer — operates here, too.
The Deputy is talking about the non-payment of contributions. This regulation will be of considerable help. I consider it does not go far enough but it will be of considerable assistance, when enforced. It was not being enforced because 98 per cent of employers, particularly the bigger firms, would be very much inconvenienced by the enforcement of the regulation. I have arranged to enforce the regulation in such a way that it will not be of inconvenience to the bigger firms but that it will be enforced where it is thought necessary. That means the production of the cards four weeks before their final surrender so as to enable the employee to see if they are stamped. This does not require legislation. A matter which will require legislation is the payment of the money——
Will the Minister bring in that legislation?
The most effective means here will require legislation. I would not contemplate bringing it in before the annual Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
Will the Minister bring it in then?
I will.
That is something. The Minister will go down in history for that.
I am already going down in history.
The Minister has said it.