Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I advised the Deputies that we were not able to introduce the amendment because we were awaiting clearance from the Office of the Attorney General, where there are great pressures of work. These are complex amendments and difficult to get right. Before I became Minister an overpayment could have been recovered for the princely sum of €2 per week. There has to be balance in our discussion. People who work and those who are retired but were in work have contributed tax and PRSI. I have an obligation to them and to the credibility of the social welfare system and contract.

I am glad that Deputy Catherine Murphy has acknowledged that the number of people who receive overpayments, some 63,000 in 2011, is a small fraction of the total number in receipt of social welfare payments, the overwhelming majority of whom are very honest. However, there are some who are not dealing honestly with the social welfare system. To be honest, this is a scandal. While the economy is doing better, money is still tight. We must be able to recover the moneys involved in a reasonable and measured way which is what this provision will put into operation. I have also had the opportunity to talk to staff dealing with this issue in the various offices. Some of those discovered abusing the social welfare system will put up their hands and agree to pay back so much a week. However, there are those who give two fingers to the rest of the working population who are paying their taxes and PRSI, saying they will only pay back €2 a week. That is not a reasonable stance to take. We are now putting into effect a modern recovery system which will do it carefully and cautiously at a maximum of 15% of the principal payment.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked about recovering from those in receipt of a single payment such as in the case of a couple claiming child benefit by stating they had seven children when they only had only three. Yes, we can. Should we recover it? If it is their only payment from the Department of Social Protection, we should claim it back at a measured amount, amounting to the same percentage and taking into account the circumstances of the case.

Deputies have stated correctly that many persons who deal with the social welfare system might not be great at reading and writing. My Department spends €47 million a year on Citizens Information centres and the MABS, the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, precisely to help people to obtain information on their entitlements. Since I became Minister, we have been working with the National Adult Literacy Agency, NALA, and the Plain English campaign to have social welfare benefits expressed in language that, while it has to have reference to the law, is understandable to as many people as possible. It must also be borne in mind that significant numbers of social welfare claimants were not born in Ireland; therefore, their grasp of English and their proficiency in the language may be less than that of Irish or other English-speaking claimants. Citizens Information centres run significant information campaigns and provide many leaflets on social welfare entitlements. We also have an advocacy service which I launched shortly after I became Minister to assist people with disabilities, for example, to receive their full social welfare entitlements. There is much emphasis on care in social welfare offices to assist people with their entitlements. The other side is that if somebody has received an overpayment, the Department is actually bound to seek its recovery on a reasonable and phased basis.

By the end of 2012 there were 675 cases in the courts system, which includes those with the Chief State Solicitor’s office and local State solicitors. I make no apology for this. By and large, the cases that end up involved in court proceedings are very serious and involve large amounts of money. If such cases go undetected and unprosecuted, it saps confidence in the social contract for those paying their taxes for the social welfare system who want to see retirees, for example, receive a decent social welfare pension. It must be remembered that social welfare rates are at the higher end of the spectrum than those in most European countries. In spite of all our economic difficulties, we have managed to keep the core weekly payments intact.

The amendment is appropriate and brings the recovery of overpayments into a modern system. The technology available in the Department of Social Protection is being updated. We have cleared the backlog of family income supplement applications and revised extensively the arrangements for domiciliary care allowance, much of which was drawn from debates in the House with Members opposite and suggestions from various organisations involved. However, we do have a persistent problem with social welfare fraud and abuse. We need to make the recoveries which is what the amendment is about. I recommend it to the House.

See this speech in context