I addressed the following question to the Minister for Social Welfare:
To ask 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.
In reply, the Minister said that statistics were not available which would enable the information sought to be given.
This strikes me as rather peculiar and indicates one-sideness on the part of the Minister's Department because the Minister was in a position in relation to a previous question to indicate the number of prosecutions that had been taken against employers who had failed to stamp their employees' cards. There is a clear indication that the Minister's Department are not concerned or have not the means to ensure that workers will be safeguarded to the extent that, by having their cards stamped, in respect of which money is deducted from their wages, they will benefit eventually.
There have been a number of cases of failure on the part of employers to stamp cards. Having regard to the number of such cases, one would imagine that the Department and, in particular, the Minister, would have done something positive to avoid such happenings. It is extremely unfair to expect a worker to know whether or not the employer is stamping cards. There is a great deal of trust involved. The worker has no access to the employer's records. However, there are in the Minister's Department a number of inspectors—I am inclined to think not too many—whose duty it is to make spot checks for the purpose of ensuring that cards are stamped.
I have come across a case of a clothing factory in Marlboro Street, Dublin. The factory operated for three years. During the course of those three years, complaint was made about the employer's failure to stamp cards. Notice was drawn to this when members of the staff left and drew their cards. The matter was reported to the Department and, in consequence, there were a number of inspections of the factory. Eventually a summons was issued against the employer but almost 12 months elapsed before the employer was brought to court. When the case was called, the employer had gone to Canada. The workers were left high and dry and were unable to obtain benefit because their cards had not been stamped.
That such cases could occur indicates the injustice and one-sideness in connection with this whole scheme of things. They are not isolated cases The Dublin Council of Trade Unions have entered into correspondence with the Minister about this matter, urging him to adopt ways and means of ensuring that this practice is discontinued. It is beyond my comprehension as to why the Minister cannot evolve a system which would ensure that employers will not get the opportunity to avoid paying their share of the stamp and, in addition, deduct the employee's share from his wages and not stamp the cards. When the employer fails to stamp the cards and eventually goes away, it means that the employee has lost the money paid by way of contribution and is denied benefit.
It is an extraordinary state of affairs that, on the other hand, the employee is obliged to conform to the PAYE system, in respect of which deductions are made from his wages and, if the employer absconds, the worker is not held responsible. For some unknown reason, the Department of Social Welfare continues to hold the worker responsible for the stamping of cards. This is a matter that is crying out for attention. I can not understand why there is not sufficient liaison between Departments so that one Department would show the other the right thing to do. Maybe it is because it is working class people who are involved, people who have to pay these contributions as a form of insurance in order that they will benefit should they become unemployed, as compared with moneyed persons who do not have to contribute to social insurance.
The amazing thing about the factory to which I have referred is that although the factory inspector has made periodic checks over three years, the last check he made was 12 months before the employer was prosecuted and at that time the employer was found not to be stamping cards. Almost 12 months elapsed without anything being done and then the employer left the country and the workers were left holding the baby. Representations have been made to the Department about this and the answer given is that the workers have a right to appeal against the decision not to pay the social welfare benefit, that they can appeal within 21 days but that the Department cannot be sure that it will do any good, that they cannot do anything about it, that there would be no real point in making such an appeal. This clearly indicates that the powers that be—I assume, the Minister—have decided that nothing can or will be done in the matter.
During the course of the supplementaries today, I thought I heard the Minister say he would like to have information in connection with matters of this kind. If that is all that is required, we can give him plenty of it. But I see little point in giving the Minister information about the happenings I have described unless something positive is done about them. If the Minister is not at present in the position to do anything about them, he should spare no time in arranging to do something about them. As I said, it appears to be a simple matter.
In his reply today, the Minister referred to an annual certificate being given to a person. What I am concerned about is the weekly return. Any man or woman in employment has no say in whether or not money should be deducted from his or her wages for PAYE or social welfare contributions. The law is there: it must be taken from their wages. Surely, when we have reached that stage, the workers concerned should, in the case of social welfare, be afforded some protection? Instead they are told: "Your man has gone to Canada. If you hear about him, come back and let us know and we will do something about it". This was told to 12 young girls working in the clothing factory in Marlboro Street. It appears that one of them is expected to go down to Shannon, another to Dún Laoghaire and another to the North Wall to keep a watch on this fellow's movements. This is quite ridiculous.
This matter has been the subject of representation by the Dublin Council of Trade Unions to the Minister. All that is being sought is security for working men and women, an assurance that when money is deducted from their wages, it will be taken care of and that they will not be left wondering whether they are working for a bad employer or a decent employer so far as this is concerned. Unfortunately, I have not got at present the number of Department inspectors who have to go round and make an inspection of each premises with a view to ensuring that social welfare cards are stamped. However, I think I am safe in saying they are few in number. I am positive one could count them, if not on one hand, then certainly on two. If we take into consideration the number of places of employment there are, even in Dublin, let alone the whole country, we realise how this system cannot operate properly. In view of the many duties such inspectors have to carry out, apart from inspecting such premises, surely this is a matter crying out for attention?
I would ask the Minister to indicate if he has any real intention of putting an end to this low, mean, despicable practice on the part of some employers who, in consequence of what they do, leave unfortunate working class people holding the bag.
