Ms Kathleen Stack:

Members raised many issues relating to heads 4 and 5. I will do my best to deal with as many of them as possible. It is important to put on the record that the Department strongly believes that the majority of people who claim social welfare payments do so legitimately. They get what they are entitled to. However, there is an element of fraud and the measures set out in heads 4 and 5 are very much directed at those people.

People will be familiar with the figure of €41 million which we raised in fraud overpayments last year out of a total of €110 million that we raised in respect of overpayments. As members are aware, the provisions in head 4 are about publishing the names and addresses of and penalties that have been applied to people who are convicted in court of fraud. I note that Deputy O'Dea spoke to the Minister about this during parliamentary questions yesterday. We very much see this as legislation that raises awareness of the consequences of social welfare fraud. There is no doubt that these cases get covered in the provincial press and the media in other quarters. What does not happen, however, is the publication of a consolidated list. The latter is what we are trying to do in the context of this head. The Data Protection Commissioner offered her views on it. Her main concern related to the issue of proportionality. We feel we have addressed that because the list will be published for three months and will then come down. We will be making sure that there are safeguards in place to ensure that once the list comes down, it can no longer be accessible. The names will be up for three months and will not be accessible after that. We will make sure that happens. This is very much part of our intent regarding the head.

That is where we are. We see this as an awareness-raising exercise, pulling the names together. Only offences that are committed after the publication of the Bill will be subject to publication. Last year we concluded 188 cases in court under our own social welfare legislation, and roughly two thirds of those resulted in a conviction. The numbers from our own legislation are relatively small, but that is the context.

I will move on to head 5, which the members have raised a number of issues on. One of the questions raised was whether we had consulted with the Attorney General. We did. The main concern that the Attorney General raised was around the area of discretion, and that there would not be an automatic disqualification but rather a discretion for our deciding officers to make that call depending on the circumstances of the particular case. The individual circumstances of the individual would be taken into account and that would be part of the proposal. I am not familiar with the 1992 case but we can certainly check it out as part of the ongoing study.