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

I was interested to hear the data supplied by the Minister. The new figures would have been even more skewed for last year when one considers that 60,000 social welfare recipients had an overpayment of one week in respect of their fuel allowance in 2011, that overpayment being subsequently deducted. The tabloid media would describe those overpayments as fraud because that is how all such matters are reported. While some tabloid newspapers have been admirable in their reporting of the Minister's latest proposal and did not go after the cheap headlines, others continue to talk about dole cheats and so on.

The figure for suspected fraud is €35 million, and this is the sum the Department should be pursuing to the ends of the earth. The message must go out that people who engage in deliberate fraud will be penalised. In the case of overpayment, it is interesting that the figure of €11.5 million, while very substantial for any community organisation, for example, is not a huge amount in the larger scheme of things. The fact that many of these overpayments relate to individuals' estates suggests that they involve elderly people who were in receipt of a contributory or non-contributory State pension and in respect of whom it was subsequently discovered, after their death, that there was a cache of money, additional assets or whatever.

The main cohort at whom these provisions are aimed are those involved in third-party error, who account for 44%, or €40 million plus, of the total figure of €92 million. In many cases these people are not aware that they are receiving an overpayment, although some may understand that they are getting slightly more than others. I do not recall any campaign urging individuals who believe they may be in receipt of an overpayment to contact their social welfare offices and have the matter dealt with as quickly as possible. Most people in receipt of social welfare are dependent on every last cent they can get. Some are making payments to debt collectors, for instance, and many are raising children. Most of them will not, in the absence of some type of prodding, offer up the excess €5 they are receiving every week. When it comes to repayment, that might sound like a small sum to people who are on a decent wage, but it adds up to €250 in a year, €500 after two years and so on. That level of overpayment amounts to a substantial sum for people on social welfare to repay. If a person moves off the dole and into minimum-wage employment, earning €350 or €400 per week, a 15% attachment order to recover an overpayment will have a significant impact on his or her disposable income.

That is our concern in regard to this amendment. It will be passed because the Government has its majority, but it is disappointing that we were not given sufficient time to examine it. I urge the Minister and her officials to ensure that the maximum is not pursued on every occasion, as per the default position of those involved in recovering moneys for the State. There is provision in the legislation for some leeway in this regard. I mentioned Dublin City Council because I am most familiar with it, but all local authorities will present a tenant in arrears, for example, with a proposal to repay €50 per week. The individual concerned must them embark on a process of negotiation to reduce the repayment to a more manageable figure. It should not be the default position to recover 15% in all instances. There must be an awareness of the difficulties involved, unless the person concerned is fortunate enough to be earning very good wages and can afford the 15% payment.

The Minister indicated that the level of departmental error is around 6%. It is telling that even the Department, with all of its computer systems and qualified personnel, can make mistakes at that level. I and other Deputies, including most likely the Minister herself over the years, have pointed out that there are many people who have difficulty filling out forms. I am aware that departmental officials generally give the benefit of the doubt in such cases, accepting that the person concerned did not understand what information was being sought. Nevertheless, it is vital that the forms be simplified. Most of the information is already on the departmental system. In time, when the computers in various Departments can talk to each other, the opportunity for both clerical mistakes and applicant errors will be reduced. That work will produce savings. In fact, if there is any saving from the provisions in this amendment, it might be re-invested to ensure the systems are properly functional. People are being penalised not only in cases in which they made a genuine mistake themselves but also in cases in which somebody else made a mistake. Between departmental error and third-party error, we are talking about some €50 million, which is not a small sum and could be better used for the benefit of a range of recipients. We should always be mindful of those in our society who might be described as functionally illiterate. It is estimated that 20% to 25% of Irish people experience major difficulty in filling out forms and completing other bureaucratic requirements. It is a scary figure for a modern society.

We are not arguing that nothing should be done. There has always been the option, as the Minister mentioned, to take civil proceedings, and that threat alone would probably have forced some people to cough up where they were in a position to do so.

Maybe the Department's failing over the years was that it did not take such proceedings, with all the publicity, thus sending out the message that where people received major overpayments over a substantial period of time the money would be recovered, especially if the person was in work or had some other source of wealth. I am concerned that, more and more, we are creating additional powers to interfere with people's personal finances. In the case of the property tax, for example, we argued about the additional powers given to the Revenue Commissioners. That is mirrored here in the granting of full access to information about people's incomes and assets. That is not a bad thing if one is talking about assets, but it is if it means continuously monitoring income other than that covered by the normal tax system in which one pays one's PRSI. Only in the event of abuse of that system should the State be involved in trying to recover money. This is not abuse of the normal tax system. It is not abuse at all in most cases, because it is not fraud. It is error, whether on the part of the customer or the Department, and it should not be treated as tax or social welfare fraud. It just seems that the two are viewed as the same thing.

How many cases are taken each year when fraud is suspected? Is there a big campaign, apart from encouraging people to let the Department know if others are fraudulently claiming? How much time and effort is put into prosecuting those involved in that fraud and how much is put into ensuring the recovery of the money? In this case we are dealing only with those who have moved on. Most of the €35 million taken through fraud or third-party error can be recovered because the people involved are still receiving social welfare, especially in this day and age when the number of people moving from dependence on social welfare to work is reduced. The amount that could be recovered is not the €92.4 million that was mentioned at the outset but is probably a very small fraction of that.

There are people who receive only child benefit, and I presume payment is excluded in such cases. I know that in the recovery process, if one is on social welfare, that is the principal payment and the 15% can be taken from it. In the case of child benefit, however, people on wages are affected, so it is slightly different. If one is on wages and receives child benefit, will the amount to be recovered come out of the child benefit? Does this apply if one is not in receipt of any payment? For example, if one is married and one's partner is earning, does this apply to recovery from the partner? There are people who do not earn an income and whose children have grown up but live at home. Is that an option that is included, or is one of the effects of this that a partner in a couple could be pursued for past overpayments by the other partner?

See this speech in context