Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 27 May 1970

Vol. 247 No. 2

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Benefit.

22.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether his Department have abandoned efforts to recover benefit lost by a person (name supplied) by reason of his employer's failure to stamp his cards at the proper times; and, if not, when preliminaries to legal action will be completed and action taken.

The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The legal authorities were instructed to take any necessary action for recovery of this money and they have been asked to expedite matters.

Will the Minister not agree that repeated representations have been made privately over a number of years with a view to getting the Department to recover the £134 2s 11d which the Department have assessed is due to this man? Is he not further aware that it is asserted by the Department that it is due to the actions of the local State solicitor in Cork that the proceedings have not been taken. If so, will the Minister issue instructions to the State solicitor to carry out his duties or else request the Attorney General to remove him from office? Can I have an answer?

The Deputy has implied a lot of serious charges against a public official about which I am not in a position to say one thing or another. The only thing I know is that I have asked the Chief State Solicitor to examine the delays in this case.

Does the Minister not agree that the files of his Department will tell him that repeated representations have been made for the past number of years on this question which arose as far back as 1965? Surely after five years it is about time that it was raised in this House. Am I to assume that a favourable reply will be available and this money recovered for the person who suffered this loss which is a not inconsiderable sum, £134 2s 11d, or am I to assume that the State solicitor in Cork is dithering on this in the hope that the man in question will pass on and the claim may fall through? The Minister can read his file and he will find all I have told him.

I am checking on the amount. It does not agree with the amount the Deputy mentions.

It is £134 2s 11d.

The man in question was paid assistance during the period in which he failed to get unemployment benefit. The difference would be something less than £50.

That is a lot to a poor man.

The amount I mentioned comes from some of the letters which emanated from his Department. They state that the amount due is £134 2s 11d. They date back to 1965. This is not my assessment. It is the Department's assessment. This man paid his contributions when employed by the party concerned and evidently the employer withheld the contributions and retained them for his own use, hence his liability to pay for the loss of benefit which ensued.

The figure of £49 11s 6d is the difference between the assistance paid and the amount that would have been paid if he had been paid benefit.

May I ask the Minister a straight question? Why has not the Chief State Solicitor's office prosecuted this employer?

That is a separate question.

It is a straight question.

Surely the Minister should be more concerned with trying to prosecute the culprit——

That is a separate question.

——than in trying to make a case to save the culprit?

Question No. 23.

23.

andMr. Ryan asked the Minister for Social Welfare whether he has taken, or will now take, legal action in the name of and on behalf of employees of a firm (name supplied) in respect of benefit lost through stamps not being affixed to insurance cards notwithstanding deductions from wages for such stamps; whether any prosecution was or will be taken against the firm; and the progress to date in the examination by his Department of ways to recover benefit for employees who at present suffer loss due to failure of employers.

24.

asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that severe hardship is caused to some employees who cannot be paid social welfare benefit because of the fact that their employers have failed to stamp their cards; and if he is prepared to consider amending the present regulations to enable his Department to pay the appropriate benefit to employees who would otherwise be deprived of them and to recover the amount of any such payments made from the employer.

With your permission, Sir, I propose to take Questions Nos. 23 and 24 together.

The failure of employers to stamp insurance cards at the proper time does not necessarily result in financial loss to insured persons because of inability to satisfy the contribution conditions for receipt of benefit under the Social Welfare Acts by reason of an employer's failure to stamp an insurance card. The position is that the employer is legally responsible for the amount of benefit lost, and any such amount may be recovered through the courts. 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 always prepared to do so at the request of the person concerned.

According to the records of my Department the insurance and redundancy cards of some 29 employees of the firm named in the second question under reply have not been stamped since May 1968, although the employer has made deductions from wages for this purpose. In the case of one of the employees concerned, a request has been received to have legal action taken by me in her name and on her behalf for the recovery of disability benefit lost through the employer's default and action is being taken accordingly. The failure of the firm in question to pay outstanding contributions is now in the hands of the Chief State Solicitor who has been asked to initiate proceedings as expeditiously as possible.

My Department have carried out an examination of the general question of loss of benefit by insured persons due to failure of employers to comply with the requirements of the Social Welfare Acts and are at present considering how best to provide more satisfactory protection for insured persons.

Would the Minister indicate who exactly will be prosecuted in the case in question? There was a change of ownership of the company from one registered company to another. Is either of the companies solvent and, if so, will the Minister tell the House whether or not the directors of the company in question can personally be held responsible?

I understand that the company are continuing in the same name. The question of prosecuting individual members of a company has been examined. Under existing company law, this is not possible.

Would it not be open to the Minister to introduce legislation under the social welfare code to make such directors responsible, without affecting company law?

It would be more a matter for a change in company law.

I do not think so.

Would the Minister state if he is prepared to stand over the undertaking given by his predecessor to amend the legislation and the regulations as suggested in the second question? Does the Minister seriously consider that the procedure of the worker having to go to the court to get this money is fair to the workers? No protection whatsoever is given to the worker in this case. Would the Minister consider that the Department should take steps to protect the worker?

(Cavan): Does the Minister not think that the time has arrived when the regulations should be changed and that the State should pay benefit lost by employees and then proceed to recover it, if they can, from the people concerned?

Hear, hear. Agreed.

In answer to Deputy Foley, I am having the examination of this matter continued with a view to evolving a more satisfactory method of dealing with cases of this kind. I am not prepared to take action that would make it easy for employers to neglect stamping by providing them with the knowledge that, in that event, the money would be paid anyhow by the State. The insured person has some obligation here, too. I should be more inclined to amend the regulations to ensure that the insured person could see his card or stamp each week.

Hear, hear.

By doing so, it would prevent arrears accruing.

A Deputy

What about having inspectors for this purpose?

The main difficulty here is that the employee never sees his card. It occurs mostly in nonunion firms. If the employee seeks to see his card, the employer very often terminates the employment. Portion of the examination should lie in the direction of a compulsory right for the employee to see his card, say, once a month, in any place of employment.

Something like this might be essential. The employee has to get his wages into his hands once every week. He never sees his card. Some method might be possible whereby he would be able to examine it occasionally. It would be impossible to have inspectors going around so frequently as to be able to ensure that all cards are stamped and that everything is in order. It is only when bankruptcy or liquidation occurs that trouble arises. It may then be found that deductions were made but that cards were not stamped maybe for a year or longer. If somebody applies for benefit in such circumstances, that person is deprived of it in which case such person has an action against the employer in ordinary civil contract. If such people do not want to take action then, at their request, I take it for them—and frequently do.

(Cavan): It takes years.

It is all very fine to blame State solicitors, and so on, for neglect, but, very often, after taking the action, there is nothing to be got.

(Cavan): Exactly. That is the point.

Is the Minister standing over the action of the State solicitor in Cork?

The Chief State Solicitor has been asked to examine the question in regard to the alleged delay in prosecution here. I have not the information to defend or otherwise the people concerned here.

Has this reference to the Cork situation?

In this case, the Department use all the pressure they can to get the person to pay the arrears. In one case, they were successful in getting a big portion of arrears paid. With regard to lack of payment to a person who would otherwise qualify, it is a separate action. The first action is to try to get the employer to pay the arrears. The next action is to hold him liable for the amount lost by some would-be beneficiary under the scheme—the old age or widow's pension, unemployment benefit, or whatever it may be. In the case of unemployment benefit—as has happened in one of these instances— the claimant could be switched to assistance. Despite what Deputy Murphy said, he did not lose the amount suggested. He was paid assistance.

I thought that question was dealt with some time back.

We are dealing with the same question.

Would the Minister not agree that the practice in relation to occupational injuries would be appropriate also for other contingencies covered by social insurance?

Words of wisdom.

He is perfectly right.

(Cavan): I have suggested that, in cases where insured persons or employees suffer a loss through failure of their employers to stamp cards, the Minister should pay it and look for recovery afterwards. There is a very excellent precedent for that in the case of the Motor Insurers' Bureau. If a person is injured by a non-insured motorist, the Motor Insurers' Bureau under agreement between them and the Minister for Local Government, pay up and then go and see if they can recover—and, in most cases, they can. I suggest the Minister should follow that excellent example.

I have already pointed out that I would not like to make it too easy for employers to opt out of their responsibilities.

(Cavan): It is the employees you are hurting.

(Interruptions.)

Is it not possible that State solicitors might be more active if the State were at the loss of the money?

Deputies

Hear, hear.

(Interruptions.)

Deputies might allow questions to be answered. Question No. 25.

The Minister's predecessor did an excellent job in Social Welfare.

He did an excellent job in Social Welfare.

That is what I said. His faults lay elsewhere.

The Deputy might be saying it in a sarcastic way.

Barr
Roinn