Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Under head 3, I echo the concern raised by Deputy Brady about maintenance payments. This is an issue the committee has been looking into. In some cases the inability to secure maintenance payments has proved detrimental to the payments that people receive, including jobseeker's payment as well as the one parent family payment. That needs to be considered if we are to be sure we are consistent in our treatment of all families, including single parent families.

In respect of the public services card, while I appreciate this legislation sets out the situations where the public services card can be used, we need to ensure it does not become a mandatory requirement in respect of these areas or access to services. I would appreciate the witnesses' thoughts on that because in the past we have decided not to have mandatory identity cards and it is important that we do not move indirectly to that position.

In respect of decisions by automated information technology systems, that is mainly positive but there are concerns about where the data are held. It is one thing for that to be an automated system within the Department, but will it be tendered out to private providers like the application for driver licences, for example, which is run by a database in America? There is a data protection issue there because one has to say what state or country one might be in. It is quite a wide data set. It is important to know about the security of the data in that system given the data hacking that has happened recently. Overpayment is in fact as large if not a larger concern than any hint of fraud. Where will the liability sit for persons affected by that? I welcome the fact the system can make only positive and not negative decisions.

Senator Humphreys has dealt strongly with head 5. These are anti-poverty payments. While they are allowances, they are calibrated to keep people living at a basic level. It is the business of courts to issue fines and to seek what can be appropriately recovered after due consideration of all related facts. If we set a precedent whereby we remove payments as an additional punishment, I would be concerned about where that would lead and what other things we would decide we would wish to punish. These are people's entitlements as citizens of our State. They are not a privilege granted.

The Data Protection Commissioner will have to be consulted in respect of head 4. It might also be good to see the precedent in other countries. This is not the same as the publication of the names of tax defaulters by the Revenue Commissioners, not simply because, as one of my colleagues said, in that case the settlements are highlighted but also because on that list information is highlighted for people who may be engaging in business with someone to ensure their payments are accurate. It has an additional function. There is no campaign on the side of buses saying that tax cheats cheat us all or that tax avoidance or evasion damages us all.

The Minister has sent the opposite signal. It is a matter of great concern that he has cautioned against those who want billionaires living abroad to pay for everything.

To my mind, this is a message that not only do we not regard revenue fraud or, if not fraud, at least legitimate tax avoidance as a serious concern but the Minister does not intend to regard it as a concern because we are no longer even using the phrase "tax exiles". The latter is a phrase I always thought was quite mild. We are now talking about billionaires living abroad. In terms of revenue settlements, I am very concerned about this matter but I would like consideration to be given to the question of the danger that may exist. It relates to the publication of even full addresses because there is a concern that if we are publishing the addresses of persons and combining this information with a campaign which indicates that these individuals are cheating others, we are creating potential endangerment. In such circumstances, I would like consideration to be given not just to the suitability of head 4 but also to the suitability of the specific provision of publication of actual addresses. My final point, which has been made by others, is how do we know this information will go away after three months?