Dáil debates

Wednesday, 23 February 2005

3:00 pm

Photo of Séamus BrennanSéamus Brennan (Dublin South, Fianna Fail)

In referring to a "method of repayment", Deputy Stanton suggests that I should have pursued the 47,000 welfare recipients in question in an attempt to secure weekly repayments of some fixed amount. I did not pursue anybody for repayments but took the view that recipients should keep the money they had been given in advance. Why should I attempt to get money back? It would only make the situation worse if I were to contact the 47,000 recipients through my officials and demand that they must repay a specified amount over a fixed number of weeks.

Having erroneously made a double payment, it was better to explain the situation immediately and trust the recipients' common sense and intelligence in handling it. It would have only exacerbated the difficulty to take the approach that, because we want to live within the letter of the law, recipients must repay €40 per week, which arrangement might require the completion of 47,000 forms and the involvement of inspectors. By taking the action we did, the entire matter was done and dusted in five or six days, without reclaiming money from any recipient. I fail to understand Deputy Stanton's reasoning on this matter. I took the view that the best approach was to explain and deal with the situation immediately, leave the funds with the recipients and apologise for the genuine data input error that had taken place.

I do not regard this error as representing an overpayment. The latter refers to moneys one receives to which one is not entitled. Perhaps it is a Jesuitical argument.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.