asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of employers that were prosecuted by his Department in 1964 and 1965, and during the last nine months for failing to stamp their employees' social welfare cards.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Non-Stamping of Social Welfare Cards.
9.
148 employers were prosecuted in 1964, 178 in 1965, and 112 in the first nine months of 1966 for failing to stamp their employees' social insurance cards.
Would it be correct to say that all those who are found not to have stamped employees' cards are not prosecuted? Is there not some arrangement by which people who fail to stamp insurance cards can pay by instalments the arrears due, in which case no proceedings are taken? Is the Minister aware that that practice has resulted very often in people who are due benefit being deprived of it because the cards were not stamped as they should have been?
No. It is often arranged that the arrears can be paid by instalments, but that does not affect whether a person will be prosecuted or not. The arrears are due to the Department, but the prosecution is in respect of a breach of the law.
Is the Minister aware that because the arrears are collected over a period of, perhaps, years, this may leave without benefit the people who have paid for their insurance over a period sometimes as long as 30 years? Would the Minister not consider in such cases giving the people the benefit to which they would be entitled if their cards were stamped properly? It is not their fault.
I do not think the Department would ever make an arrangement for the collection of arrears which did not involve an initial payment which would put the person concerned immediately into benefit. However, in many cases it is a practical question of getting the money. There would not be much point in insisting on immediate payment if it was not possible to get it.
The Minister must be aware that, because of the practice which has grown up over the years that arrears can be paid by instalments, people are deprived of benefit to which they are entitled. If the Minister wants an example of it, I shall give it to him tomorrow morning.
This is not a practice. It would be a very exceptional case in which arrears would be accepted by instalments.
No, it is a practice.
The normal thing would be to insist on getting the payment in one sum and immediately, and it would only be where it was obviously impossible to get that that any arrangement on the line of instalments would be made.
It is a very common practice. Some people are paying over years.
Is the Minister not aware that in the event of the employer not stamping the cards over a period of three or four years, these employees are deprived of benefit?
That is the point.
I have put that point to the Minister in connection with the case in County Limerick where 12 people were deprived of benefit because of the failure of the employer to stamp the cards. The cards are not yet stamped and those employees are at a loss of benefit accordingly. What does the Minister propose to do in cases such as this.
Prosecute.
This person has been prosecuted already.
The Deputy has made that point.
He was fined a sum of £5 but, in the meantime, the cards were not stamped.
10.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the number of employees that have been denied social welfare benefits because of their employers' failure to stamp their cards in the years 1964 and 1965, and during the past nine months.
Statistics are not available which would enable the information sought by the Deputy to be given.
Is this an indication that the Minister and the Department are not aware of what is going on? Having regard to the fact that a considerable number of people have been denied unemployment benefit because of the failure of employers to stamp their cards, does he not seriously think something should be done about it?
Everything possible is done.
Would the Minister consider everything possible has been done or is being done when there are cases where the Department is advised of an employer's failure to stamp cards; an inspector goes to the place of employment and finds this to be correct; no prosecution takes place and, eventually, the employer absconds, flees the country, and the employees are denied social welfare benefit? Does the Minister stand over such a situation?
No, I do not, and I do not believe it happened.
It does.
The prosecution should obviously take place as early as possible.
In case the Minister does not know this, I had occasion to contact his Department on a matter of this kind and I was told nothing could be done about it. Bearing in mind what the Minister says now, if he so wishes, I can give him the information if he will do something about it.
If the person is gone, I cannot do anything about it.
I am talking about giving the employee benefit.
The employee has a responsibility in this matter, too.
Would the Minister not agree it is a most unsatisfactory situation that a third party, the employee, should suffer because of the negligence of the employer, and, in view of the evidence which is being placed at the Minister's disposal through his Department, would he not now agree that this matter should be reviewed?
My Department makes every possible effort to ensure that employers meet their liabilities under the Social Insurance Act. When it is discovered that an employer has not done so he will be prosecuted and also sued for the arrears of contributions due.
Would the Minister not agree this is poor consolation to the person who is deprived of benefit?
Does the Minister not consider it would be proper, in the event of its being found that an employer had failed to stamp his employees' cards, that the employees should be notified their cards had not been stamped?
Yes, I certainly do.
It is not done.
It should be done.
With your permission, Sir, I propose to raise the subject matter of this question on the Adjournment.
I shall communicate with the Deputy.
11.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if, having regard to the loss incurred by social welfare contributors when an employer fails to stamp their cards and absconds, he will arrange for such contributors to be afforded the same protection as they receive under the PAYE system.
If an employer fails to pay employment contributions in respect of an employee and absconds there is no power under the Social Welfare Acts and Regulations to credit the employee with the unpaid contributions but in certain circumstances he may be allowed, if he so wishes, to pay them himself in order to safeguard his right to benefit. I regret that it has not been found feasible to issue receipts for insurance cards to individual employees each year. However, as a safeguard against the possibility of an employer failing to stamp an employee's card at the proper time he is now required to present the card for the inspection and signature of the employee within four weeks of the expiration of the period of currency of the card. This gives every employee the opportunity of seeing that his card is being duly stamped. If it is not, he may bring the matter to the notice of my Department which will then take immediate steps to investigate the complaint and recover any arrears of contributions due.
Is the Minister indicating it is not practical or possible to afford the same facilities to such people as is afforded under PAYE? If one Department can do it, why can another not do it?
It is not impossible, but the belief of my Department is that it would not be feasible, without undue expense, to give annual receipts to each individual employee. However, I am having the matter re-examined. Of course, that would still give only an annual check to the employee but, in the meantime, each employer is now required, within four weeks of the expiration of the contribution year, to produce to the employee his insurance card for inspection and to obtain the employee's signature on it. Each employee's signature must be on the card when it is returned to my Department.
The signature is on it before it goes out. The Minister's Department puts the signature on it.
There is a space provided on the insurance card now for the signature of the employee certifying to the fact that the card has been produced——
This year's card?
Yes, for his inspection.
This is a matter which has been submitted to the Minister by the Dublin Council of Trade Unions. Furthermore, it is not a question of giving an annual receipt but of giving a weekly indication that the deductions have been made. Would the Minister not consider having talks with the Department of Finance in order to ascertain how they work it under the PAYE system?