Aengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein)

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 21, to delete lines 30 to 38, and in page 22, to delete lines 1 to 10.

The amendment relates to fraud, as raised by the Minister in the previous contribution. I reject the suggestions that I condone fraud under the social welfare code in any way. I repeat what I said yesterday. I have been a Member of the Dáil since 2002, and I have continuously encouraged the Department of Social Protection to increase the number of social welfare inspectors to target those who are involved in fraud and to pursue them through the courts if necessary. I do not think I can go beyond that. The concern of most Deputies and of most member of the public is to ensure that the social welfare code is fully protected.

That said, the change to the current practice is in danger of straying beyond the norm because it specifies that in the event of someone being involved in fraud that not only the fraudulent part of the claim is affected but also that part to which they are or were entitled. This means that for those who are involved in fraud, the concealment of facts or making misleading statements would also be affected by a significant change.

It is very difficult to retrospectively deny someone his or her entitlements. That is my concern. If a person was entitled to part of a claim but he or she was also making a fraudulent claim then one should go after him or her for the amount that was being fraudulently claimed. Such a person should be penalised as well by the imposition of fines on top of that, but to retrospectively deny a person what he or she is rightfully entitled to is a step too far.

That is not to undermine the social welfare code in any way. It does not put any restrictions on social welfare inspectors. It is the current practice. The problem is that as a society we have not done enough to ensure a full recovery of fraudulent social welfare claims or any other claims. The proposal is a step too far. If there was enough time to examine the Bill properly and to get the view of legal practitioners concerns might be expressed. The Bill is rushed and like all rushed legislation there is a danger that we will go too far or that the proper protections will not be put in place. In such circumstances we are straying into bad legislation which will then fall in the event of a court challenge. That is a possibility in this case.

In the short time since the Bill was published a number of submissions have been made on it. The measure was identified by both the FLAC group and the INOU as an area of concern. They were also concerned at the short period for the intended passage of the Bill, as I am.

I might be out of order. Perhaps I am reading it wrong but given my opposition to social welfare fraud I gave some time to scrutinise the Bill to ensure I was not out of line in this instance with my expressed view. If I am, then that is my fault but it is also a result of rushing through legislation where we do not have adequate time to examine.

See this speech in context