Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I do not propose to accept these amendments. I am informed by the office of the Parliamentary Counsel that the Title, namely, the Social Welfare Bill 2012, is sufficient in terms of the various provisions therein. The proposed amendments, including those in the name of Deputy Ó Snodaigh, are also covered by the Title. In the circumstances, there is no need to include a reference to "Miscellaneous Provisions" in the Title.

A reference to "pensions" in the Title is only required where there are amendments to the Pensions Act 1990 included in the Bill, namely, changes to occupational and private pension schemes. The amendments to the social welfare pension schemes included in this Bill are encompassed in the general Title "Social Welfare Bill". As no amendments to the Pensions Act are proposed in this Bill, a reference to "pensions" in the Title is not required.

Deputy Ó Snodaigh made specific reference to a number of amendments, which I hope we will have an opportunity to discuss in some detail later. There is a proposal in the Bill regarding the deduction of payments through the Post Office household budgeting facility. I would like to explain this to Deputy Ó Snodaigh, with whom I recall having a discussion on this issue early in the lifetime of this Government. The Deputy will be aware that where a person obtains tenancy through a local authority, under RAS or otherwise, he or she is often asked by that local authority, including the one in Dublin city, to sign up to the household budgeting system via An Post and is happy to do so. However, as referred to by the Deputy, having signed up to pay the rent on a weekly or monthly basis through the budgeting system of the Post Office, which is a good facility and is a good use of the services of the post office, people often sign off without any reference to the local authority.

Many members will previously have been members of a local authority and will be aware of the large build up of arrears down through the years in some local authorities. Deputy Ó Snodaigh and I have on a previous occasion discussed what happens when people get into rent arrears, in particular with a large local authority such as that in Dublin. This often leads to very difficult situations for families and women, who often manage payment of the rent. This provision provides that when a person is offered a tenancy he or she must agree to sign up to the household budgeting system and can only sign off from it with the agreement of the local authority. The purpose of this is to reduce the risk of large arrears being built up, which is a reasonable objective. Deputy Ó Snodaigh will be aware that where people build up large arrears this can lead to other problems in the family, particularly for women who are managing on tight budgets. It often leads to the situation whereby because the family is in arrears it is not entitled to be considered for transfer to larger accommodation as the family grows. I recall that I discussed this matter with Deputy Ó Snodaigh on a previous occasion.

It was challenging to draft this and get the agreement of the Office of the Attorney General because, of course, people have to agree to an arrangement for payment. My impression during previous discussions was that the Deputy was quite in favour of this. Almost everyone in this Chamber, including myself, has formerly been a member of a local authority and is very aware of the problems that arise for families when large rent arrears build up. This is actually meant to be helpful to families and I am not quite clear why Deputy Ó Snodaigh would have a problem with it.

On the question of overpayments, I have a disagreement with Sinn Féin. At the moment it is often possible to recover only €2 per week in arrears from the basic primary social welfare payment of an individual. The amendment I am proposing is to increase that to up to 15% of the primary social welfare payment of the individual who is in arrears. Therefore, if an individual is claiming jobseeker's allowance, for example, with an income of €188 and is also entitled to claim for a dependent spouse and children, the only payment that the arrears would be taken from is the primary payment of €188. The other payments relating to other people in the family would not be affected. Most Deputies know of situations in which people have been involved in significant abuse of the social welfare system. The money they owe can only be recovered at €2 per week and compliant people up and down the road in a local authority estate or on a landing in a flat complex find it deeply unacceptable that they are paying their rent and doing everything right while other people who have scammed the social welfare system only have to repay €2 per week. Furthermore, if such people repay extra, they can then go to their local community welfare service and recover any amount they have paid in excess of €2. This amendment aims to change that situation.

Where overpayments relate to errors or mistakes on the part of the Department, leeway is provided. The 15% referred to is the upper limit. I am anxious to send out a message that if people owe money to the social welfare system, they will have to repay it at a reasonable rate. I believe that a rate of up to 15% of the individual's primary payment, but not any other payments in respect of children, dependent spouses or other adults in the household, is a reasonable arrangement. It would max out at about €26. This would send out a strong signal. At the moment, the Department of Social Protection is owed, according to the recent report from the Comptroller and Auditor General, somewhere in the region of €350 million because of fraud, overpayments and so forth. I do not think it is realistic to expect that we will be able to recover most of that but if we could recover even half of it over a three- to five-year period, it would take the pressure off other areas of the social welfare budget. It would mean that the pressure regarding payments to carers, about whom many Deputies have spoken tonight, pensioners and others would be eased. If we could recover €175 million over three to five years, we could recover anywhere between €20 million and €30 million per year. Also, as overpayments occur and we become aware of them in the future, we will be able to recover the money in a timely manner. Deputies will know of situations in which the build-up of arrears plunges families into deep difficulties, but if we are able to recover the overpayments in a timely fashion, this will reduce problems for families. If money has been defrauded from the system we need to recover as much of it as possible, if not all. Where money has been overpaid by mistake or in error, we also need to recover it so that it can be used in other areas such as those of carers and pensioners, about whom Deputies spoke so convincingly tonight.

See this speech in context