asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he has yet received a report on a legal action in the name of and on behalf of employees of a firm (details supplied) in respect of benefits lost through stamps not being affixed to insurance cards, notwithstanding deductions from wages for such stamps; whether any prosecution has been taken against the firm on the findings; and if he will state the progress to-date in the examination by his Department of ways to recover benefit for employees who at present suffer loss owing to failure of employers to stamp cards.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Insurance Contributions.
18.
Legal action was not taken against the firm in question in respect of benefits lost by employees through failure by the firm to pay insurance contributions. The firm went into voluntary liquidation on 1st September, 1969, and a subsequent scheme of arrangement in the matter of creditors was approved by a High Court order. This precluded action for the recovery of benefits lost by the employees.
On the question of providing against loss of benefit by insured persons where employers fail to pay insurance contributions due I indicated in my reply to a question in this matter by Deputy Keating on 27th January, 1971, that I propose to amend the legislation at the earliest opportunity to ensure that no insured person, who is himself blameless in the matter, will lose benefit solely by reason of an employer's failure or neglect to pay insurance contributions due and that I am, in the meantime, amending existing statutory regulations governing the payment and crediting of contributions which will have the effect of greatly reducing the number of cases in which loss of benefit can arise due to employers failure to stamp insurance cards.
Is the Minister aware that of the 29 employees involved in this firm which failed to stamp their employees' cards, some were deprived of disability benefit and some of unemployment benefit for a period of about seven weeks and that no compensation has been offered to them? Could the Minister tell us if it is the intention of the Department to compensate them or in what way they will be compensated?
I think the Deputy will have to ask the Minister for Social Welfare whether the regulations which are being prepared by virtue of the provisions of section 7 of the 1952 Act will apply in this case. As I have indicated already, the Minister is making regulations which will cover most of the difficulties that will arise in this sort of case where firms failed to pay the contribution. Consequent upon that there will be amending legislation which will clear up the whole position. I am sure the Minister for Social Welfare would be saying in my place that this matter must be cleared up but whether what he is doing in relation to section 7 of the 1952 Act would apply to these employees, I am not certain. Would the Deputy address a question to the Minister in regard to these employees or else ask him about them?
Will the Minister ask the Minister for Social Welfare to send me a written reply?
I will ask the Minister whether the persons about whom the Deputy speaks would be covered by what he proposes to do.
The Minister has been asked that by Deputies on this side of the House on a number of occasions and he has not answered. He has been evasive.
I have indicated quite clearly——
I am not talking about the Tánaiste.
——that the Minister is making amending regulations to cover most of the cases and that he is introducing legislation.
He did not say that. Why did he not say that last week when he was asked a question about it? He said he would consider it.
Apparently he has made up his mind since.
Maybe so.
When Ministers make up their minds it is a good thing, is it not?
When they are persuaded to make up their minds by questions being asked, it is a good thing also.
19.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will consider amending the regulations to ensure that an insured person can inspect his or her insurance card on request.
Existing regulations provide for the inspection of his insurance card by an insured person and, accordingly, amendment is not necessary.
Under these regulations an employer is required to give to an employed contributor who desires to inspect his insurance card while it is in the custody of the employer, a reasonable opportunity of so doing, either within or immediately before or after working hours. The only restrictions on an insured person's right to inspect his card are that he may do so not more than once in any calendar month and then only at such time as may be fixed by his employer for the purpose.
This has been the position since the Social Welfare Acts came into operation on 5th January, 1953.
Is the Minister aware that on numerous occasions recently when employees have asked to see their cards they have been given their cards and told that their employment had been terminated? This is happening mainly in non-union jobs. Would not the introduction of specific legislation protect this type of employee?
Joining a trade union would also protect him.
I suggest that the Deputy should communicate with the Minister and give him specific examples of what is happening, or of what he says, in regard to this matter. I am sure the Minister would examine them. The regulations are perfectly clear. A person has the right to examine his insurance card but not more often than once in any calendar month. If employers are dismissing people because they ask to see their insurance cards, this is a most serious matter. I hope the Deputy will draw the attention of the Minister to the specific cases which he has in mind.
20.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will give favourable consideration to the reduction of contributions payable by domestic employees under the Social Welfare Acts.
The answer is in the negative. Females employed in private domestic service, to whom it is assumed the Deputy's question refers, are at present insurable at a reduced rate of contribution. May I refer the Deputy to my reply to a related question on 28th January?