Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

Some people do. I have major problems with a few elements of the legislation. The measures on recovery of overpayments are scraping the bottom of the barrel. I will give two cases without mentioning names lest the Acting Chairman jump down my throat. One mother, now a pensioner, told me her son, now in his mid-40s, was an apprentice chef when he was in his late teens or early 20s. At the time, 20 or 25 years ago, the Department of Social Welfare was paying his mother social welfare benefits for him on the basis that he was still in full-time education, but then told her he was no longer entitled to the money because he was an apprentice. She said he was in full-time education and therefore she had to look after him. The Department revoked the payment, she challenged it and it was restored. Although she thought it was resolved, 25 years later she received a letter informing her that two years of overpayments were to be deducted from her pension. That is outrageous and indicative of a Department that is scraping the bottom of the barrel. Somebody who is on a State pension, by definition living in poverty, will be driven further into poverty because of confusion and incompetence in the Department 25 years ago. She cannot even remember all the details.

In another case, about which I have telephoned the Department, a youngish man, approximately my age, in his 40s had some sort of overpayment issue approximately 20 years ago. Although he cannot remember the details, in his mind the issue was resolved back then, but 20 years on he does not have any evidence. The Department says it has overpaid him and is demanding the money back, and he does not have a leg to stand on. While in the courts there is a statute of limitations on debt - I think it is six years - the Department can go back 20 years, and it has all the cards because it can produce the evidence. Any nuanced, personal, detailed knowledge is gone and we are dealing with just pieces of paper and boxes being ticked.

The Government is scraping the bottom of the barrel to get money in while poor people on social welfare or pensions are being raided for lump sum payments, refunds or whatever the Department can get back. The victims of these raids can say or do nothing about it. It is unacceptable and brings to mind the question I have heard a lot on the doorsteps over the past few weeks as to how the Government can operate in terms of attacking the poor and the vulnerable. It seems there are no depths to which we will not sink to attack the poor and vulnerable in the money grab.

We can contrast it with how the wealthy and powerful are dealt with in terms of moneys owed. The Paris Bakery is a good example. Although I have said it on two or three occasions here it still galls me that the richest man in the country, who took over Sierra Support Services Group, the company which has got the contract to install water meters, had €100 million of his debts written off, mostly by Anglo Irish Bank, a public bank. In other words, his debts were written off by the same poor people we are talking about and by ordinary workers who have been hammered. We gave him €100 million. He also has a controlling share in Independent News and Media, and we wrote off €90 million of its debts. It is unbelievable when the poor are being hammered and we are taking bread off their tables. When the Government takes €10 or €15 from somebody on €188 per week, it is driving somebody who is already poor further into poverty. It is unacceptable. I ask the Government to think about the idea of trawling back 20 years and taking money from people where there is no fraud. In the vast majority of these cases there was an overpayment due to the Department's incompetence.

It is beyond belief, and it is one issue to which I am utterly opposed having included in the Bill.

I am concerned about another area, although I do not fully understand it and I want to hear from the Minister about it. This is the so-called strengthening of the habitual residency rules. From what I understand in reading the Bill, which is quite complicated and detailed, this will essentially allow adjudicating officers to reconsider whether somebody who has been determined as habitually resident and therefore entitled to a social welfare payment can continue to receive the payment. The review would happen on the basis that the person in question was not subsequently habitually resident in the State. Perhaps the person left the country or had a bank account in England, as many do, given our relationship with Britain, which means there is much activity back and forth. This happens because of the location of extended families or people having to do bits of work, leading to bank accounts or connections elsewhere. I suspect this will be another excuse to deny people social welfare entitlements, and I am concerned about that.

The detail of the issue must be examined thoroughly and perhaps the Minister will respond by telling me the process will be very fair. Excuse me if I am a little sceptical or concerned about that, given the issue I have just mentioned. There is a drive in the Department to scrape the bottom of the barrel looking for money and that often has pretty adverse consequences for people who really do not need the hassle of having payments cut off because of what is essentially bureaucratic box ticking. These are the two major issues about which I am concerned.

There is another issue I have discussed on umpteen occasions with the Minister of State, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, the most recent of which was yesterday. It relates to rent allowance caps, provisions for which should be in the Bill but are not. I do not understand why that is so. I mentioned yesterday the case of a young woman in Bray with a severely autistic child who has been living in a hotel in Bray. As the summer holidays are approaching, the hotel can probably get tourist trade and it does not really want homeless people whose accommodation is paid by the Department, so it has engineered an excuse to kick out this woman. The woman has nowhere to go and having gone to the offices of Wicklow County Council, she was told it has nothing for her.

This woman has a child with severe special needs and what will solve her problem? Reviews are wonderful and I hope we can have a major social housing programme as we need to start building straight away. None of this will solve this woman's problem next week or today. The only solution to her problem would be the Minister telling the community welfare officer, ideally in legislation, that if somebody is faced with homelessness as a result of being unable to source private rented accommodation, the community welfare officer would approve him or her for a higher rent allowance cap based on what is available in the area. The woman I mentioned would then be able to look at www.daft.ieand see what is available for a mother with one child, such as a two-bedroom house or flat. In Bray, any suitable property would probably cost approximately €1,200 or €1,300 per month in rent and she will have to pay that in order to get a roof over her head. The community welfare officer can check it by looking at the property website before deciding the rent is reasonable and she can find a place to live. Only properties for rent at €1,200 or €1,300 per month are available and there is nowhere available at €975 per month. Such a provision should be included in the Bill and it is not too late for the Government to put it in. This must happen as otherwise, over the summer the homelessness crisis will spiral completely out of control.

See this speech in context