asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether, with reference to the refusal of unemployment benefit to a person (name supplied) for reasons stated in his Department's letter of 7th February, 1968, he will, in view of this man's extremely good record of employment, re-examine the case with a view to granting benefit in full.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Refusal of Unemployment Benefit.
63.
I have examined this case. The position is that the person concerned made a claim to unemployment benefit on 7th December, 1967, but did not satisfy the required contribution conditions until 24th January, 1968, from which date he became entitled to payment and is being paid. The deferment of title resulted from statutory regulations and was caused by the late payment by an employer of certain contributions due by him in respect of employment of the claimant in 1966.
As explained to the Deputy in the letter he mentions, the claimant has a legal right to recover from the employer as a civil debt a sum equal to the amount of the benefit lost up to 23rd January, 1968 through the employer's failure or neglect to pay the contributions in question at the proper time.
I should add that the disallowance of benefit for an initial period of the claim was imposed by a deciding officer in the exercise of his statutory functions and that the decision was upheld on appeal.
Would the Minister not reconsider this? This young man worked for a number of years with a particular employer and then became self-employed. He came back and did casual work for his former employer, who neglected to stamp his cards. Now this has been corrected. There was no suggestion at all that anything was being evaded. In the light of this, would the Minister not reconsider his decision, and if he is precluded by law from allowing the unemployment benefit, would he introduce legislation to empower him to do so? This is a straightforward case, as the Minister will appreciate.
I am precluded from doing what the Deputy suggests. The good record of this insured contributor is not in question at all, but he simply did not fulfil the statutory requirements when he made application in December, in that he had not 26 contributions in the 1966 contribution year. It was found that he should have had 11 more contributions, which were paid in arrears, as is usually done. The Minister does not step into make good where the employer defaults in not stamping the card, but the insured person has the right to claim from the employer the money which he lost and, in fact, I can do so for him at his request.
The two people in question are the employer and the employee. There is a record that the employer has employed a person for about 12 years. There is a record in the Minister's Department. This is a straightforward case and there is no question of anyone claiming anything from anyone other than the Department. Surely the conscience of the Department must be more elastic than the Minister makes us believe?
We cannot have a debate on this question.
The person in question is a constituent of the Minister's.
Is the Minister absolutely certain that he has not got the discretion to waive the 28-day penalty if he believes there is a reasonable excuse?
He has the discretion, but the supplementary question refers to the period during which this claimant lost about £41.
The Minister has the discretion to waive the penalty.
In order to cause no embarrassment between the employee and the former employer who may become an employer in the future, would the Minister not institute civil proceedings to recover the amount due?
I might indeed.
Would that not be the proper thing for the Minister to do to avoid embarrassment between employer and employee?
We cannot debate this question all evening.
One final question. If the Minister is precluded from paying the amount which the employee claims, would he use his discretion and pay the 28 days?
It has been on appeal. It is not usual to pay.
In view of the fact that the Minister is going to a wedding tomorrow——
That reason is not a very good one. The Deputy must remember that I do not think it would be right for the Minister to have discretionary power to fill the entire gap. He can exercise it in certain cases of arrears. We cannot appear to come to the aid of employers who failed to stamp cards, however legitimate the excuse may be.
We all join in asking the Minister to give the man the 28 days now.
The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.