Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I compliment Deputy Ó Snodaigh on his introduction of this Bill. It is a useful proposal. I am aware of the Deputy's interest in dealing with social welfare fraud, and it is important that we discuss how we might best deal with a matter of this nature. The effective investigations that took place last year resulted in the identification of €645 million in overpayments of one type or another from a budget of over €20 billion. Clearly, it is a matter of considerable importance that social welfare fraud is examined carefully from time to time in this House.

I compliment the Department on the establishment of the fraud initiative 2011-13, which has made great strides in dealing with the matter. I thank all the other Deputies, including Deputy Brian Stanley, Deputy Durkan, Deputy Terence Flanagan and Deputy Feighan, for their valuable contributions. The Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Burton, has already indicated that she will not be accepting this legislation and she had outlined the reasons. I will to some extent go over them again and add some comments.

One of the Government's key priorities is to ensure that the State's reduced resources are targeted at and available to those most in need of State support. The Minister, Deputy Burton, referred earlier to how income and support services impact on the lives of almost every person in the State with some 1.4 million people receiving a social welfare payment each week. When qualified adults and children are included, a total of over 2 million people, almost half the population, benefit from weekly payments. Social welfare expenditure accounts for some 40% of gross current Government expenditure. It is imperative, therefore, to ensure that the right person is paid the right amount of money at the right time and that any abuse of the social welfare system is tackled in an effective and robust manner. I am aware from my work as a public representative that social welfare fraud undermines public confidence in the entire system and that it is unfair to other recipients of social welfare payments and to ordinary taxpayers who pay their ongoing dues.

Against this backdrop the current policies to tackle fraud and reduce error are set. Tolerance of welfare fraud in society generally or through peers leads to an acceptance of fraud. If sanctions are believed to be weak or if persons engaging in welfare fraud believe they will get away with it, then an increase in the incidence of fraud is possible. However, I believe that there has been a significant change in attitudes and culture in Ireland in recent years with regard to social welfare fraud and abusing public services generally and this has been a change for the better.

A key aspect of the control policy of the Department of Social Protection is to ensure that appropriate sanctions are applied in instances where social welfare fraud has been detected. Effective debt recovery is seen as an integral part of the deterrent approach. It creates a climate whereby people who have been overpaid know that they have a responsibility to repay the moneys concerned and know that the Department will take appropriate steps to effect recovery of the moneys involved. Every effort must be made to prevent overpayments, but if they occur they should be regarded as a debt to the Exchequer and every effort will be made to recover the payments through all available means.

The Bill suggests that there are persons knowingly in receipt of social welfare payments in excess of their current entitlement. If this is the case and the persons are not deliberately committing fraud, then they should come forward to the Department to regularise their positions and payments as soon as possible. This is a catch-22: if they know they have been overpaid they are committing a fraud by not coming forward and repaying money they are not entitled to retain, but if they do not know they have been overpaid then an amnesty is irrelevant because an amnesty will not make them aware of the overpayment. This is the crux of the matter.

In general, the recovery amount proposed would be the maximum repayment that the person could afford to repay as quickly as possible. When deductions from social welfare payments are being considered regard is had to the value and nature of the overpayment debt, that is, whether it is fraud or non-fraud, and the person's circumstances and his ability to increase the level of deduction by reference to whether he has other income or means. The Department is always willing to talk to people who wish to regularise their position. Up to 15% of a person's personal rate can be deducted under new arrangements. Any deductions to be applied will take account of a person's circumstances, that is, whether he has other income or means, and whether overpayment is due to fraud or non-fraud.

It is the Department's policy to consider for prosecution cases of fraud against the social welfare system. The Department ensures that cases which merit prosecution are forwarded for consideration of legal proceedings and that all necessary evidential proofs are available. In considering cases of social welfare fraud for legal proceedings, the Department applies defined and recognised best practice standards. This includes consideration of the duration of the fraud, the amount overpaid, previous incidences of social welfare fraud etc. Criminal prosecutions may be taken against persons who defraud the social welfare payments system and employers who fail to carry out their statutory obligations. A person who is found guilty of abusing the social welfare system may be fined or imprisoned.

The Minister, Deputy Burton, has outlined previously that there is clear evidence that social welfare amnesties of this nature do not work. The two previous amnesties had only a small degree of voluntary disclosure and, in the end, cases that the Department had already detected had to be offered the amnesty. This was counter-productive and cost that State money that it would have collected anyway. The amnesties were also costly and difficult to administer.

This Bill, which incorporates debt forgiveness, would effectively create a twin-track approach. On the one hand some people would be paying back overpayments in accordance with departmental procedures, and on the other hand people who availed of the amnesty would effectively get away without having to repay any of the moneys that were overpaid. I do not believe this is an acceptable way to proceed.

While I recognise the worthy and commendable concerns of the Deputy, I oppose the passage of the Bill. The Government is satisfied that rather than save money for the State in terms of welfare expenditure, the proposal would be costly to administer. Further, it would be ineffective in the fight against welfare fraud and undermine public confidence in the existing systems. As I stated at the outset, total social welfare expenditure in 2013 will account for some 40% of gross current Government expenditure. Protecting the integrity of this expenditure must be a top priority of the Government and central to this aim is tackling fraud and abuse within the social welfare system. This will continue to be done.

See this speech in context