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

I thank the witnesses for their attendance. Reading through the general scheme yesterday, I made a few notes on matters that came to my attention in this Part. On head 3, will it be the position statutorily that a person will be entitled to receive one full social welfare payment, a full guardian's payment and a half-rate carer's allowance? Will Mr. McKeon confirm that this will be the entitlement?

Head 4 deals with fraud, an issue I and others raised in the Dáil yesterday. I remain mystified as to the reason for this provision. I am totally opposed to social welfare fraud, which is a particularly despicable form of crime, and I fully agree that a hard line should be taken towards it. However, the way in which the proposals outlined in head 4 will improve matters escapes me. We are told that this measure will provide further deterrence. When someone is convicted of social welfare fraud we read about the case in the newspapers and the details are usually widely disseminated in local media. What purpose is to be served by publishing, some months after the event, a list of people who have been convicted of social welfare fraud? People commit other types of fraud and we have armed robbers and all sorts of other criminals who go to court, are convicted and have their cases publicised in the media. Will lists of such persons be drawn up and published in the hope that this will deter them from committing future crimes of this nature? The Revenue list of tax defaulters is different because it refers to settlements in cases that do not go to court. People would never know that Mr. or Mrs X did not pay his or her tax and settled a case if it were not for the publication of this list. How will this purported increased public awareness deter potential social welfare fraudsters?

The Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed, INOU, and others asked us to raise another issue. It is intended to publish the list within three months after the end of the quarter in which the conviction occurred. What is to stop other organisations taking the list and republishing it on a continual basis? Will it be removed from the Department's search engine, for example? I ask for clarification on that issue?

On head 5, in cases where people who are already paying off an overpayment are convicted, will they receive up to 75% of their full social welfare rate for nine weeks before reverting to the overpayment, in other words, will this be an additional payment which will not in any way impinge on the amount of the overpayment people will ultimately have to pay?

I am not sure how the provisions in head 7 will result in lower charges. Perhaps Mr. McKeon will clarify the position.

Head 8 includes a peculiar provision on decisions made by automation. It provides that persons may receive a benefit from a machine but the machine cannot refuse a person a benefit. Does this mean that where a person is not granted a benefit, he or she may appeal but only to a human being, rather than a machine? What I cannot figure it is why anyone would appeal the granting of a benefit. The Department will certainly not appeal because it will hardly appeal its own decision. I ask for clarification in this regard. The only example of a person appealing the granting of a social welfare benefit is in cases where the full benefit to which the claimant believes he or she is entitled is not granted. I hope the machines will not have any part in making decisions of that nature.

Head 9 relates to provisions on the recovery of special damages in court cases and provided that these will be extended to supplementary welfare allowance. I can understand circumstances in which someone is granted supplementary welfare allowance but does not ultimately qualify for a benefit. Surely in cases such as those provided for in this head the person will qualify for disability allowance given that he or she will be off work with an injury. In my experience, and I am sure it is one shared by other members, if someone is granted supplementary welfare allowance during this period, the payment will be clawed back. Let us say it takes ten weeks for the disability allowance payment to come through, while the claimant will be entitled to ten weeks' arrears, the supplementary welfare payment will be clawed back from the arrears. The head must be drafted in such a way as to ensure benefits are not clawed back on the double.

I would like head 10 (1b) explained. What precise income will be taken into account in such a situation?