Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

To spend money, in local authorities and elsewhere. I spent years on a health board. Usually, very innovative proposals were made by people in opposition to spend money. They were not so eager to impose the taxes required to raise the revenue required for expenditure. While I acknowledge this is a common failing of humanity, I note there has been a tendency on the part of some – sometimes those in Sinn Féin although not necessarily – to advocate that austerity is awful. We know it is. Nobody is supporting austerity in order to punish people. It is bad but it is a reality. It is called good accounting, making savings, good housekeeping and living within our means. Only a fool would impose austerity on anybody if it were not necessary. Those in opposition put forward alternatives but, sadly, they are misleading the public because the country is in dire straits administratively, governmentally and in the wider economy. Seriously difficult decisions have had to be taken. Those who suggest Government parties enjoy making such decisions and punishing people by raising taxes and introducing cuts to public services are incorrect. Nobody enjoys taking these steps. It is just an unfortunate and tragic reality that we face.

We are always told by those on the opposite side of the House that we have options. Of course, we have options. One option is to do nothing, in which case the problem will become immeasurably worse and the difficulties now faced by the people will be multiplied manyfold. Alternatively, we can do something about the problem and control it by bringing the public finances back into line with reality. I am not blaming previous Administrations. It is up to those who are to blame to accept blame. However, there is no use in avoiding the issues as they now present themselves to us. These issues are stark.

Refusing to pay some bank, for example, is not the answer to our problems. We have a current budget deficit that must be dealt with. If we do not deal with it, somebody else will do so harshly, and much more harshly than at present. We need to get away from the notion that the Government is a big, bad wolf out to punish the people indefinitely for crimes they did not commit. This is not so. People may well say that there are perpetrators who got away with it. We do not know whether they did; we are not so sure about that yet. I would not dine out on that belief for too long. Time will tell.

It is very important that we preserve the integrity of the social welfare system for those who are dependent thereon, those out of work, carers, those with special needs and the vulnerable. Vulnerability is magnified by the current economic difficulties. I have always been very conscious of the need for those in public life to engage with people individually to determine their exact circumstances. One should not remain aloof from the electorate. We need to operate, particularly at this time, in a more personable and personal way than in the past such that we may know how the economic climate is affecting individual households. We must do our best to assist and advise people, including the Government, regarding the circumstances that may emerge from time to time. We must do so in the national economic interest and in the interest of those who depend on social welfare. If we achieve this, we will achieve savings at least of the magnitude proposed in this Bill.

It is fundamentally wrong to suggest that we should avoid the collection of arrears that are the result of deliberate fraud. I acknowledge this is not the intention of the Bill. Over recent years, there has been fairly widespread, consistent and deliberate defrauding of the system to receive payments to which one is not entitled. We need to deal with that. We should not reward people who have defrauded the system.

There will always be those who inadvertently receive an overpayment. It is sometimes the fault of the Department and sometimes the fault of the applicant. Notwithstanding the 15% referred to, there is already a mechanism in the system to accommodate individuals who find themselves in this position. I would always support strongly the fair treatment of these individuals. This is what the legislation is supposed to do in any event. The Department should recover moneys according to the recipient's ability to meet repayments.

The fundamental issue with which we must deal is the ability of the person dependent on social welfare to opt out of the social welfare system when he becomes employed and to opt in again, as necessary, without losing for a long time the benefits to which he would ordinarily be entitled. I ask that this be addressed as a matter of urgency.

We did these things in the 1980s. We had schemes that offered provision for transition for people. It is increasingly more important that this be done when economic recovery becomes a reality. Otherwise there is a danger that people who could avail of that economic recovery would remain in one or other position without realising their full potential for the benefit of themselves and the economy.

See this speech in context