Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I have not denied that social welfare fraud exists, nor have I ever condoned it. On various occasions I have taken the opportunity in this House to encourage the Department to use its existing powers and to train its staff to pursue those who defraud the system.

No one in this Chamber opposes the other measures in the Bill which are, I hope, designed to tackle some of the elements of fraud. I refer, for example, to section 13, which relates to members of the Garda Síochána and social welfare inspectors working together on checkpoints. Sections 14 and 15 relate to public service cards and the provisions they contain will be useful in tackling a type of fraud which may arise in the future.

Section 18 is quite specific in the context of what is intended. It is not the case that the Department is trying to recover just the money it is owed by those who commit fraud. It refers to "Repayment of amounts due arising from false or misleading statements or wilful concealment of facts." Not all of this would equate to fraud in a court of law. Section 18 states that where a person is required to repay an amount of any payment, the amount to be repaid in such circumstances shall not be reduced by the amount of any other payment referred to in the section and which the person would otherwise have been entitled to.

No one is denying that the Department should recover the full amount of a fraudulent claim or a fine that has been imposed. The section would mean an amount to be paid could not be reduced by taking into account the payment a person was entitled to. The Minister mentioned a period of four years. A person who was on jobseeker's allowance for four years and received a fraudulent payment for the last two of those four years would have to repay a substantial amount of money. If the person was fraudulently claiming jobseeker's allowance, he or she should have to pay it back in the same way as a person in a bank or any other institution who robbed or fraudulently obtained money and was found by a court to have done so would have to pay the money back. If a person is entitled to a certain part of the payment, he or she has that entitlement and it cannot be taken away, except by a court of law that has found fraud. Before an incident goes to court, a departmental inspector decides whether the person has misled the Department and wilfully concealed facts. If an inspector has found fraud and the amount is substantial the person concerned should be brought to court and charged with a criminal offence.

The culture will not change among that cohort of people unless they are made to feel the full extent of the law. I am concerned that this measure has not been discussed in sufficient detail and that the full advice regarding the effect of this change in legislation has not been gleaned. I thank FLAC for highlighting this issue. I had marked it down on the day we were briefed by departmental staff. My note in the margin highlights the words "demonstrably, knowingly defrauded".

My preference is that the section should be opposed. If that is not going to happen, the words of my amendment should be inserted. A small caveat might prevent serious hardship being imposed on people who were not knowingly involved in fraud but who, for some reason or other, misled officials. They may not have been aware they were misleading officials. The problem may have arisen from the way they presented themselves or through a misunderstanding that could have been sorted out at an earlier stage.

Overpayment or fraud should be spotted as early as possible so that amounts of overpayment do not build up. This can cost the State large sums and the person involved cannot realistically pay the money back. There is no point in seeking the repayment of €20,000 or €30,000 from a person who has absolutely nothing. Circumstances must be taken into account. Every attempt should be made to recover money for the State but we must also be realistic about people's circumstances. Mechanisms need to be found to recover money without undue hardship on families. There has been discretion in the past. Most officials have worked with people in these circumstances and the State has recovered a large amounts of money over the years. That has meant there has not been as high a level of fraud as in other countries. The Department has been aware of it and has acted on an ongoing basis.

See this speech in context