Ruth Coppinger (Dublin West, Solidarity) | Oireachtas source

Much of the Bill is uncontroversial. It is technical amendments to legislation etc. As other Deputies have said, there are elements of this Bill which display a contempt and despisement for the poor and working-class people or those who may be reliant on social welfare. I will come back to the name and shame policy shortly as I want to refer to a couple of other sections first.

Section 5 allows for the public services card to have dates of birth on them in order that the card can then be used as ID. A proposal such as this requires further debate.

Section 7 allows for certain welfare payments to be awarded on the basis of an automated information system rather than through the scrutiny of an actual human being who is familiar. This could also lead to a lot of problems. Clearly, this is about reducing staffing levels and the trade unions should be very aware of this. The automated system is also much more likely to be extended to more complex decisions than those it is already being used for. Currently it is being used for requests such as increasing child benefit for the second or subsequent child. It will lead to a poorer service and it is very likely to lead to people not being given the benefit they seek. This is an issue about which people contact our office a lot. It would leave applicants then having to appeal the decision, which is a very daunting prospect for many people who do not have the means, literacy or wherewithal to do that. This will lead to people being potentially underpaid, overpaid or accused of the type of fraud the Minister appears to be so obsessed with. The Bill in the context of the Pensions Act is also something we will take up further in future contributions on the Bill.

Section 4 contains the name and shame policy for people who are found guilty of welfare fraud by the Department in each quarter. This carries out the campaign policy of the Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, when he was bidding to become the leader of Fine Gael and appealing to his base. It is now to be carried out quickly before the summer, even though there are many other pressing subjects waiting to be legislated for.

Let us look at the reality of this welfare fraud. In a recent survey by thejournal.ie, it has been calculated as €51.9 million. This is 16% of the inflated estimate that came from the Department. A former welfare inspector, fair play to the woman, Bernadette Gorman, estimates the fraud level to be lower again at €41 million. A former welfare inspector has come out publicly and spoken of the kinds of people who are found guilty of getting these overpayments. She has condemned the Minister's policy as being unnecessary and politically motivated. The numbers of overpayments due to fraud have been declining in recent years. The loss in State funds due to overpayments is minimal and is largely due to genuine errors. Total overpayments for last year amounted to €110 million. The Taoiseach, Deputy Varadkar, has said his Department recovered €82 million. If most of this money is repaid, what is the need to publicise people's names?

We can contrast the massive resources going into the this detection versus the resources the Minister, Deputy Doherty, and her Government put in to detecting underpayment of tax by business. I will give a few statistics. Of 385 audits on companies in 2013, additional liability was found in 77% of cases. In the south west, it was discovered that of those audited, 89.9% had underpaid their tax. Revenue received €61 million in underpaid taxes from 276 hospital consultants who were audited this year. Despite consistently bringing in large amounts of undeclared tax, Revenue’s risk-based audits have decreased by 30% since 2012. The Revenue Commissioners are doing less with regard to tax fraud by companies. Clearly, the Government is not interested in resourcing the audits in this area, even though it would bring in much more revenue.

Given that the Minister only seems to be concerned with so-called fraud by the poor, I want to ask her a few questions. Does the Minister believe that businesses that, for example, do not pay their creditors should be named and shamed? Does she believe that individuals who owe money to Revenue should be named and shamed? Should companies which do not keep proper books of accounts be named and shamed, as deemed by auditors who investigate those companies? Should owners of companies who take loans from those companies, in contravention of company law, be named and shamed and made to pay everything back?

See this speech in context