asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he is aware that some 60 workers employed in two shoe factories in Castleblayney, County Monaghan, have been disallowed unemployment benefit following the closure of both factories; and that the insurance cards of these workers were not stamped by the managements concerned during the past 12 months and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Closure of County Monaghan Shoe Factory.
10.
I am aware that a number of workers lost their employment at the end of January last in the circumstances mentioned. My information is that 37 persons were involved of whom 29 were females. Of the 37, seven males claimed unemployment benefit and three of these claims were allowed; 12 females claimed unemployment benefit and two of these claims were allowed. Unemployment assistance was paid to two workers who were not qualified for unemployment benefit and eligibility for unemployment assistance is under investigation in six other cases. Only six of the workers are still signing at the employment offices; it is understood that many of the remainder have found other employment
I am also aware that there was failure by the employers concerned to pay insurance contributions for periods beginning in 1968. In this connection a remittance for £506 on foot of a court decree obtained by my Department last year is with the Chief State Solicitor. A further sum of approximately £1,500 is, however, due in respect of arrears of contributions and any measures open to the Department to recover this debt will be taken.
As I stated in reply to a question on Tuesday last, amending regulations have recently been made which are designed to mitigate, so far as it is possible to do so under existing legislation, the hardship caused to insured persons who lose benefit as the result of default of employers in paying contributions. The position of the claimants in the present case under these new regulations is under urgent examination. As I also stated on the same occasion, I intend at the first opportunity to amend the existing legislation 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.
In view of the fact that this employer failed to pay social insurance contributions to the tune of £2,000, in view of the high cost of such contributions generally and the vital importance of the benefits derived therefrom, would the Minister introduce some system of surveillance, particularly in the case of large employers —in this case there were some 60 persons employed—so that it would not come to light in the early part of 1971 that insurance contributions had not been paid since mid-1968? There must be some method of ensuring that there will not be a recurrence of such a situation.
That may have been the impression created by my answer but it is not in fact so that the failure to pay contributions came to light only this year. The decree to which I have referred and on foot of which money has been recovered was obtained as a result of discovering non-payment of contributions earlier than this.
Is the Minister aware that the Department should have been watching out for this employer in view of the fact that 12 months ago an employee who left that employment found his card was not stamped and that action by the Department had to be taken on an individual case? Should that not have alerted the Department to the fact that there might have been a danger of the other employees' cards not being stamped either? Would the Minister try to get his colleague in Social Welfare to introduce some system of surveillance on such people?
I am not aware of the situation as stated by the Deputy but I will pass his comments to the Minister.
I dealt with the case myself so I know.
I would, however, point out that there are systems of surveillance in these matters as a result of which, as I have said, the decree was obtained. It may be that they are not sufficiently thorough but they do exist, and I am quite certain the Minister for Social Welfare is keeping an eye on stepping up the efficacy of these surveillance measures.
If the investigating officers were as good at watching these cases as they are at watching the few shillings extra when people apply for benefit they would be doing a very good job.