Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am sharing time with Deputy Clare Daly, who will be here in a few moments. We will take ten minutes each.

I will make a number of observations on the Bill but first I will make the general point that most of its provisions are non-controversial as they contain technical amendments to the Social Welfare Acts. However, I am concerned about a number of the Bill's provisions. The public services card is an issue. Many people do not want to see the national use of a public services card. There is a data protection question around this as well. I believe we are moving ever closer to a mandatory identity card and by changing this a little at a time, it will become part of the system. Most people in this State are opposed to that. Has this been checked with the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner? What is its opinion on it? Can we have a written reply from that office? It would be good to have it on Committee Stage.

We had an important debate in the committee on equal treatment and the occupational pension. Pension Equality, which represents retired LGBTI public servants who cannot access a survivor pension for their same-sex spouse because they could not marry before they retired appeared before the joint committee. That provision was in the original Bill. Where is it now? Will it come in at a later Stage or will it be contained in separate legislation? That group was given an indication by the Department that it was not a problem to deal with the issue, that the Department would deal with it and that it would be part of the Bill, and the representatives were quite pleased.

Like other Deputies, I am also concerned about section 4 of the Bill. I welcome the removal of the provision about the 25% because it was clearly controversial from the point of view of even the courts system. The State was playing an arbitrary role in this regard whereby a trial having taken place and a judge having given a penalty, the Department of Social Protection would then be adding on another penalty. I think this would have been illegal and we would have sought clarification on whether it was legally permissible.

I take the Minister to task about the Taoiseach's campaign against so-called welfare cheats. Many people referred to how he was the main problem. He used that campaign to win his position in the Fine Gael Party as he was seen as the man who was going after all the cheats out there and those working-class people who were of that part of society. It was a disgraceful and shameful act on the part of a Minister.

As has been already stated, Bernadette Gorman, a former social protection officer, has come out in opposition against what the Taoiseach said, as well as against the comments of the Minister, Deputy Regina Doherty. Ms Gorman's comments came after the new Minister for Social Protection, Deputy Regina Doherty, indicated that tackling fraud will continue to be a priority for the Department. Speaking about the controversial campaign headed by her predecessor, the Taoiseach, Deputy Leo Varadkar, the Minister stated "anybody who's claiming money that they shouldn't be claiming that would deny other people who should be claiming the money is obviously going to be a priority".

I have no problem with anyone being brought to court for maliciously defrauding the State. That is not a problem for anyone in this Dáil. Everyone has made that quite clear. However, here we see a heightened and hyper campaign that the then Minister led. The current Minister for Social Protection went on to state it is "interesting that every single TD yesterday from the left stood up and challenged the Taoiseach over that [welfare fraud] campaign when it's defrauding money from the State". Ms Gorman spoke to "Newstalk Breakfast" on the following Friday morning to defend the Department's anti-fraud practices. She quite rightly said, and it has always been the case, that staff had been extremely effective at stamping out fraud. She said that on listening to the Taoiseach and the Minister, Deputy Regina Doherty, one would imagine he had magicked the notion into the social welfare code of anti-fraud activities. She said the reality is there had always been highly efficient anti-fraud activities within the Department's structure and statutes. She queried whether the Minister was telling her that the methods whereby the fraud was policed for all those years was inefficient. Ms Gorman, a former social protection officer, stated this was not the case. She went on to state there had not been €500 million worth of fraud in 2016. She noted that was a projected figure and there has always been a projected figure every year. She stated the true figure is €40 million but that when one factors out unintentional fraud and administrative errors, it is around €25 million. She said that is a very small amount and it has to be dealt with. It is obvious that it must be dealt with but to inflate it to the point to which it has been inflated is absolutely outrageous. It is targeting a certain section of society that is very vulnerable.

The Irish National Organisation of the Unemployed, INOU, has also condemned this campaign and welcomes the removal of the proposed 25% deduction. The organisation has stated it should be taken out of the Bill. I agree and intend to put down an amendment to delete that section of the Bill. I am sure everyone else will be doing the same. The INOU also believes that the publication of names and addresses is an issue requiring consideration under the Data Protection Act and has gone through a number of points that we will raise on Committee Stage. Therefore, the Minister should be aware that several organisations also have huge concerns.

Deputy Clare Daly has a lot of experience in dealing with and information on defined benefit schemes and she intends to table amendments in this regard. I will not say too much, except to say such schemes should be protected. No company should be able to dissolve such a scheme, particularly when it is in surplus. There is also the question of what happens when they do run into problems. That the Pensions Authority is using money from the defined benefit schemes to pay for itself to continue to look at the schemes must be examined. Delaying this will give companies some additional time to ascertain how such schemes can be wound down quicker. It would have been better if it had been more defined in the Bill at this stage of the game.

My last point relates to pensions. As has been discussed at the committee, we have produced three reports to date. One is on lone parents, one is on the Money Advice & Budgeting Services, MABS, and the third, on the pensions contribution, is being finalised at the moment. Members of the committee, including me, would like a reply regarding the Minister's position on the reports on lone parents and MABS report but have not got received such a reply yet. We will produce a report on the contributory pension issue and the points coming out of it are very important.

Mick Clifford wrote an article entitled "It seems this is no country for old women". He makes the point about the changes that Deputy Burton, the so-called leader of the Labour Party and the working people, introduced in 2012. He refers to a worker who retired on 31 August 2012 with an average of 21 annual PRSI payments throughout his working life receiving a contributory pension of €225, while a worker who retired two days later and who had made an average of 29 contributions per year, got only €196. This affects women in particular. We know that given the way in which the bands were changed. This must change as soon as possible.

It was pointed out that the tax relief given to private pensions could be reduced to 33%, which would give the State approximately €180 million to offset against paying back the moneys owed to women from 1973 or even from 1994. That should be reviewed. The Minister should examine that and refer back to it on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context