Dáil debates

Friday, 18 January 2013

Social Welfare (Amnesty) Bill 2012: Second Stage [Private Members]

 

12:30 pm

Photo of Aengus Ó SnodaighAengus Ó Snodaigh (Dublin South Central, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I understand, but there is a key difference. The previous amnesties failed to provide guarantees on anything other than penalties. People had to pay the full amount back with interest. There was no carrot being dangled other than a promise not to impose penalties. This amnesty proposal is substantially different. Earlier amnesties were an afterthought designed more to take pressure off a Government offering a tax amnesty to the rich. Amnesties were pitched mainly at the self-employed and employers. Interestingly, the retired Labour Party Deputy and then leader of Democratic Left, Prionsias De Rossa, said the amnesty was designed to give a bogus veneer of equity to a tax amnesty and was intended "to salve the consciences of the Labour Party Ministers who so meekly went along with Mr. Albert Reynolds's proposal to wipe the slate clean for major tax cheats". In 1991, only 17 people applied for the amnesty even though there were 500 inquiries. In 1993, more than €1.25 million was recouped with 600 applicants dealt with who, as the Minister of the day explained, were not forthcoming themselves but were identified by the Department and jumped at the chance to take advantage of the amnesty.

This is a different approach and would involve the State foregoing, as it foregoes in many other instances, money it is owed. In the case of the banks and many of the speculators, the State has decided it will never recoup much of the money from those who have left us in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. We ask that those at the other end of the system should have some prospect of having their slate wiped clean and their position regularised. In doing so, the State would save money. If the amnesty happened this month, the State would see approximately 10,000 seeking to avail of it. On top of the other control savings, that would lead to a saving of approximately €50 million. It could be €70 million or it could be less but it would be of that scale. It deserves serious consideration. If the proposal comes back before the House in another format, I will have no problem with it. I have not put this forward to score political points.

That is the primary difference. I am sorry the Minister is not willing to support it. I expected it but I listened to the debate and was interested in some of the contributions from Fine Gael Members who saw merit in the proposal, particularly for those caught up in error. At the very least, the Minister should look at that. The Bill as laid out ruled out any amnesty for serial fraudsters, such as those involved in ID theft who claim in the name of a person or several persons or in several parts of the country or those involved in violence or threats of violence against social welfare inspectors and others in the system.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.