Terence Flanagan (Dublin North East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Undoubtedly the problem of social welfare fraud is a huge issue in Ireland as shown by recent figures provided by the Minister for Social Protection and the Department, which set a target of reviewing 985,000 individual welfare claims last year with the aim of achieving €645 million in control savings. We know that at the end of July more than €400 million in control savings was reported and more than 650,000 reviews had been carried out. We also know from the Comptroller and Auditor and General's report that the Department is owed more than €343 million in welfare overpayments due to fraud and to error.

I am confident the Department is addressing the issue and making progress in reducing the amount of money being lost by the State as a result of benefit fraud. We are all ware of the various initiatives that have been introduced such as the new Facebook software which will help deal with this issue. In 2011 the Department was successful in recovering €50 million of the €92.4 million made in overpayments, €35 million of which was due to fraud.

I welcome Deputy Ó Snodaigh's Bill. The introduction of a social welfare amnesty period is a worthwhile move that would generate further savings for the Department and the Exchequer, particularly if its introduction is needed to address overpayments in genuine cases. The Minister and the Department should not rule out consideration of this proposal. The Minister should examine the details of any proposed amnesty that would deal with some of the genuine errors that are not deliberative that are made either by the Department or by the claimant. Such a move would encourage claimants who have received overpayments to report them to the Department with fear of any repercussions. Subsequently, a claimant would not have to repay any overpayment made but the necessary changes would be made to his or her payments in the future.

Anyone who would not avail of such an amnesty period and was later found to be receiving an overpayment should not receive any concessions for repayment and should have to repay the amount in full or be treated as having committed fraud. I agree that if a large number of people were to avail of such an amnesty and their cases were in the system that would free up Department personnel to focus on other priorities, including the intense period ahead in dealing with fraud investigations and deliberate fraud.

Is it envisaged that additional staff would be required in the Department if a large number of cases were involved in any proposed amnesty or would the Department have the capacity to accommodate their processing? I am aware the Deputy has introduced the Bill with a view to increasing savings by the Department and recouping moneys lost by the Exchequer and that is the reason I very much welcome what is being proposed.

I am also aware there would be objections to this proposal by some people who believe such a scheme would allow people to get away with committing fraud. However, if savings of up to €55 million can be made, this proposal should be examined. The move would be welcomed by genuine welfare claimants who have received overpayments due to an error and they are afraid to talk about having received them because they do not have the means to repay those overpayments to the Department. Should an amnesty be declared it would be important that it be widely publicised and that people would be in no doubt as to its duration and that they would be required to report their overpayments or otherwise would face strong repercussions if their overpayments were later discovered following the period covered by the amnesty. It would be important that in the case of those who would report any discrepancies that proper proofing would be given by the Department that they have done that to ensure that people could not come back and say they had reported the overpayment and their circumstances and they would not be obliged to make a full repayment if that had not been adequately recorded adequately by the Department. The Deputy might comment further on how he would envisage that process working.

I welcome the Deputy's Bill and very much agree with the spirit in which it has been proposed to assist claimants who find themselves in a difficult situation where genuine errors were made. Hopefully, the Government will examine this proposal further and it could provide capacity to improve the country's finances which is very much needed at this time.

See this speech in context