John Brady (Wicklow, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I will try my best. I welcome the change made to the payment for guardians. The change recognises that the payment to the guardian should be for the benefit of the child. It is a fundamental principle that underpins payments to guardians. However, there is a contradiction because the same principle does not apply to maintenance payments. A payment to a lone parent family is regarded as a source of income and is means tested even though it is a payment for the child concerned. I ask the officials to touch on the matter.

I am deeply concerned about the move to tackle fraud. I share all of the concerns that have been expressed by Senator Humphreys but I have a few additional concerns. The Department has conducted a high profile campaign. Many figures and misinformation have been put into the public domain but I do not have the time to go into more detail now. I will discuss the information that has come out about identity fraud. Over the past couple of days figures were circulated but yesterday the figures were amended. Yesterday morning, up to April of this year there was one case of suspected identity fraud. Subsequently, the figure was amended to 11 cases late yesterday afternoon yet the overall figure has remained static at 155 cases that date back to 2013. I would like clarity on the matter.

I have serious concerns about publishing the names and addresses of people. Has the Data Protection Commissioner been consulted about the practice of naming and shaming by the Department? I acknowledge that people will go through the courts system. There has been a level of concern expressed about the practice being a breach of data protection, which I share.

In terms of preventing people or entities from using the information in terms of housing, insurance and potential employers, the Department has said that the information will be published for three months. What measures have been put in place to stop that information being shared outside of that structure and being held against the people concerned? How will the Department prevent people from sharing the information? Will the Department hold on to the information and publish it at a later stage?

I read about an interesting case of overpayment in the media yesterday. The case went all of the way to the Ombudsman. The Department chased an individual for an alleged overpayment of €20,000. The Ombudsman wrote to the Department to state that there was no way the overpayment could have happened. I do not think that the individual concerned received an acknowledgement or correspondence from the Department. The person took the case to the Ombudsman. It turned out that the discrepancy had been caused by the Department and, in fact, the person was owed €700 by the Department. There are more similar cases. Overpayment is a bigger problem than the focus that the Minister and the Department has put on this type of fraud. I agree with Deputy O'Dea and do not condone social welfare fraud. However, overpayment is a bigger problem. The case that was mentioned in the media yesterday typifies this matter. What has the Department done about overpayments?

Senator Humphreys mentioned that the Minister can cut a person's weekly social welfare payment by up to 25%. I agree with Senator Humphreys that the provision is dangerous and that the constitutional issues involved will cause serious problems. I do not understand the rationale behind the provision. Small amounts of money are involved. I cannot get my head around the provision and believe it is dangerous territory.