Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I move amendment No. 10:

In page 21, line 33, after "payment" to insert "obtained as a result of conscious fraud".

This is an important change to the way the Department goes about recovering overpayments. The section deals with fraud, although it is not even fraud, as it states: "Repayment of amounts due arising from false or misleading statements or wilful concealment of facts." To date, in the case of repayment of moneys owed or wrongly claimed by an individual, if the person is entitled to another payment, that payment is deducted from the overall amount. For example, in the case of a person who is in receipt of jobseeker's allowance with an allowance for a child, but who actually has no child, the arrangement currently is that he or she pays back the amount given in respect of the child; however, after this change, the person will pay back everything from the start. The section states: "the amount to be repaid in such circumstances shall not be reduced by the amount of any other payment...to which the person would otherwise have been entitled in the period to which the overpayment relates". There is a danger here. I am not saying the Department should not pursue the person for the amount obtained fraudulently; in any case, if there is a conscious fraud involved, the Department should be going to the courts, which I do not think it has done often enough. There are many cases in which there is overpayment due to a failure to disclose information. However, if the disclosure had not been made for two years, for example, the amount to be recovered by the Department would be so substantial that it would never be recoverable in the case of a person who was genuinely dependent on social welfare but should have been receiving a single payment only. Such a person is entitled, as soon as the fraud is discovered, to claim again for jobseeker's allowance, but he or she would be subject to a charge and a fine as well as the repayment.

This could come to a substantial and daunting amount which may never be realisable.

We have to be realistic but the provisions in this section make no exceptions for cases where there may be an inability to pay or no possibility of ever recovering the moneys. While we need to tackle the level of social welfare fraud, we must ensure we do not pursue cases of overpayment on the part of the Department or, as has happened, cases where data on particular applications has not been recorded properly. I admit the Department has put in place much better systems to counter these problems. However, I know of 700 cases of rent assessment which were not dealt with by Dublin City Council for several years. Subsequently, each of the claimants received bills for arrears and notices to quit their council housing.

Similarly, it is unfair to request the repayment of €20,000 from someone who has been on social welfare for several years. If someone is entitled to a payment, even retrospectively, then they should receive it. This section, however, removes that entitlement as a punishment for wrongdoing, a step too far. FLAC, the Free Legal Advice Centres, and the Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed, INOU, have raised similar concerns as to how this section will operate. We need to be careful. There are times when there are misunderstandings between officials and applicants. I would like to see a campaign similar to that of the Plain English group for some social welfare forms. With more communication between various Departments and community welfare officers, material requested of claimants should only have to be given once rather than several requests made for the same information from various sections.

I am not opposed to the Department claiming back and fining individuals involved in social welfare fraud. However, I am concerned that the provisions in this section may be taking it a step too far.

See this speech in context