Willie O'Dea (Limerick City, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Under the relevant section of the principal Act as originally drafted, if the Department of Social Protection owed someone money and if it transpired that the individual in question also owed money to it, then one could be offset against the other. Apparently the law was changed to state that when the overpayment by the Department was the result of fraud, then the money involved could not be used for offsetting purposes. It appears the legislation has been somewhat refined and that an offset can be refused when an overpayment is the result of fraud, as determined by a deciding officer or an appeals officer. I do not carry a brief for those who commit fraud and I am of the view that those who defraud the social welfare system should be pursued to the ends of the earth. Under the Bill before the House, a deciding officer is going to be able to decide whether somebody has committed fraud. The latter is, of course, a serious criminal offence and I would imagine that determining whether fraud has been committed should be a matter for judge and jury. In this instance, there will be a finding of fraud against someone if a deciding officer or an appeals officer consider that the overpayment relating to him or her was the result of fraud.

In many cases, where people have been deemed in the opinion of the Department to have committed fraud, they are not made aware of this. They will receive letters stating that they have been overpaid and the various sections, etc. of Bills under which this has been determined will be listed. However, such letters do not mention the fact that they are deemed to have committed fraud. I am of the view that, from a constitutional point of view, this is very dangerous. In the context of a person's ability to repay money he or she owes to the Department or his or her ability to clear a debt, that this should depend on the opinion of a single official, without any recourse for those involved and in circumstances where, in many instances, these people will not know what has actually been determined, is wrong. As a result, I am of the view that the entire section should be revisited.