Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I want to support this Bill because I think it represents a step forward. It is necessary as we try to deal with this issue. I do not need to repeat all of the points that have been made. I suggest that the Department of Social Protection is particularly responsible for perpetuating the dangerous myth that loads of people are defrauding the system. Those who receive social welfare payment for genuine reasons are being tarred with the same brush as those who are involved in the fraud bracket or system. The real figures have been pointed out already in this debate. They are not significantly in excess of the international norms that are generally encountered. The real figure is much smaller than the €640 million we often hear people talking about. Many of the over-payments that are made result from genuine errors and mistakes on the part of the social welfare recipient or the Department.

Many people who are aware that they are receiving too much money are afraid of the bureaucracy they will encounter if they go into one of the Department's offices and the criminal outcomes that could result from the bureaucratic process. They fear that their incomes, which are already very low, will be cut. This legislation will give such people an opportunity to come forward, make it known that they believe they are being overpaid and allow the Department to investigate the matter. Deputy Ó Snodaigh made the point that the proposed one-off amnesty would last a month and would be succeeded by a two-month intensification of the Department's existing anti-fraud and control activities. I think many people who have genuine fears about going to the Department to declare that they may be receiving the wrong social welfare payment - I emphasise that they comprise a small minority of all social welfare recipients - would come forward in such circumstances.

I would like to mention the case of a man in my constituency, who contacted me to tell me what happened after someone made a complaint to the Department to the effect that he was defrauding the system. An inspector knocked on the door of his house and asked loads of questions. It turned out that he was not defrauding the system. We do not know the person who made the complaint. Perhaps he or she had something against my constituent. A great deal of time was wasted when the inspector had to call to the man's house. I suggest that those who make complaints about suspected fraud should have to provide their personal public service numbers and identify themselves.

It is not unusual for this State to consider the provision of a tax amnesty. It has already been mentioned that amnesties tend to be offered to the very wealthy. I remind the House that five tax amnesties were provided to tax defaulters over a six-year period between 1988 and 1993. At the time, it prompted a cartoonist to label Ireland as "amnesty international". As recently as 2009, another tax amnesty was given to the well-heeled. I refer to the stamp duty incentive scheme that was introduced in the Finance Act 2008. A 56-day waiver period was provided, along with amnesties on penalties and on up to 30% of the amount payable. I understand the amnesty related to stamp duty not paid in respect of land and property deals at any time in the previous ten years. The Revenue offices stayed open until midnight on the last day of the amnesty because of the amount of people who were coming forward. While the number of social welfare recipients who would avail of the proposed amnesty in this instance might not be as great, many people are concerned that they might be on the wrong payment and afraid that they might have to face the machinery of the Department on their own.

If Deputies are concerned about aspects of this legislation, which I think is progressive, they should table amendments to be debated on Committee Stage. I contend that the main substance of the Bill is robust and should be taken on board. The Minister should give serious consideration to it. If there is a good response to and take-up of the amnesty, it would reduce the amount of work that has to be done by departmental officials who receive telephone calls asking them to go to investigate prospective cases of fraud. That, in turn, would allow more time to be devoted to the provision of front-line services to those who turn up in departmental offices to get advice on their social welfare needs and entitlements in areas like domiciliary care.

I support this Bill. I hope the Minister will be positive about taking it on board. It will serve the Department well in the long term as it tries to do its everyday work. I reiterate that the emphasis on fraud tends to portray genuine people who need various State supports to keep them alive and keep food on their tables - they may have lost their jobs or started to need domiciliary care - in a negative way. We need to ensure they are not tarred with the same brush as those who are defrauding the State. This Bill will deal with many aspects of the issue. It will alleviate the concerns of many people who genuinely need the support of the State at this bad time in our country's history, when the austerity measures that are affecting people's lives are failing to bring us out of recession.

See this speech in context