John Lahart (Dublin South West, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

This is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate the Minister on her appointment. The purpose of this Bill is to provide for amendments to the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005, the Pensions Act 1990 and the Civil Registration Act 2004. Fianna Fáil does not intend to oppose the Bill on Second Stage. One of the main provisions of the Bill is to amend the Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2005 to allow for the publication on a quarterly basis of the names and addresses of persons convicted of social welfare fraud. This made the news earlier in the year. Fianna Fáil does not condone welfare fraud in any shape or form but it will not condone the perception created by the Taoiseach when he was Minister for Social Protection in launching his "welfare cheats cheat us all" campaign that there is widespread social welfare fraud. Most of those in receipt of social welfare payments, as all public representatives know, are genuine claimants. Fianna Fáil will table an amendment to this Bill to ensure that only those convicted of social welfare fraud in excess of €5,000 will have their names published.

Earlier in the year when the then Minister, Deputy Varadkar, launched his campaign to much fanfare he stated that anti-fraud and control measures saved the taxpayer €506 million in 2016, a staggering sum of money. It would be particularly staggering if fraud was involved. We know however from answers secured through parliamentary questions from Fianna Fáil that just 8%, only €41 million, of the €506 million savings claimed by the then Minister is actually attributable to fraud. There is no place for fraud in our social protection system. It needs to be weeded out and it can never be condoned. As we know, however, there is a significant body of research available to the Department and the Minister, as there was to her predecessor, on the difference between fraud and error, deliberate or accidental. I imagine that the complexity of the social protection system can lead to multiple genuine errors and I have a great deal of experience of dealing with that on behalf of constituents. It is not always deliberate and I trust the Department to know the difference between the two. We need to get around that kind of misrepresentation, the headline issue, the impression given when the Minister mentioned a figure of half a billion euro that there is widespread fraud, whereas the fraud amounted to only 8% of that headline figure. It created the impression of the Department and Minister as gamekeepers, trying to catch people out whereas the role of the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection is to support people who need the State's assistance, generally at vulnerable times in their lives.

7 o’clock

Yes, we need to crack down on fraud and ensure that the State's funds are used to support those who genuinely need help but we do not need to make a political virtue out of scapegoating an entire section of society.

The legislation on public service cards that exercised the Minister's mind during the summer is an interesting matter. I had sympathy for the Minster. It happened during the so-called silly season and significant media attention was focused on it but it is something on which we need to spend some time. We are not wholly opposed to the legislation but we are cognisant that there is widespread opposition to the introduction of a compulsory identity card and we will seek reassurances from the Minister that the questions raised by the Data Protection Commissioner will be fully addressed and there will be full transparency on how the data is collected, secured, who has access to it and whether it is shared with third parties, organisations or other State bodies. That is critical. Personally, the idea of a national identity card does not present any issue for me. In the age in which we live it is a very useful thing, but when one delves into the matter, it is not a simple identity card with basic details, and people need to know what personal information it holds and who has access to it. These are basic questions.

I accept the card has been in operation for those who require social protection services since 2011 and this is not the first time that a national identity card was mooted. In 2009, a report by the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs recommended the introduction of a national identity card to coincide with the development of a public services card. I accept it is not a national identity card. This is where some of the confusion needs to be clarified. I have not got mine yet. I keep meeting people who have them and I am intrigued as to why they have theirs and I do not but I assume that over time we will all have one and it will become an identity card by stealth.

The use of biometric data being incorporated into the public services card in order to eliminate the possibility of fraud and to improve the efficiency of public services is bound to bring matters of personal rights, such as the right to privacy and personal liberty, into sharp focus so it is essential that both Houses are given the opportunity to debate it and consider the human rights and-or data protection implications of introducing such a system and particularly if it is extended to being a national identity card.

There are advantages. There are plausible arguments for and against this but many will vigorously challenge the possible infringements on a person's privacy. We, as legislators, must determine if the concept of mandatory cards challenges the inalienable right to individual privacy which is protected by the Constitution.

The Bill also provides for a number of amendments to the Pensions Act 1990 in relation to defined benefit pension schemes and I welcome this. During the Minister's speech introducing this Bill on Second Stage, she indicated that she would introduce amendments to the legislation pertaining to that section of the Bill on Committee Stage. This issue is particularly complex, with significant implications for employers and employees. However, given recent events relating to the closure of defined benefit pension schemes, it is clear that more needs to be done to prevent solvent companies from walking away, leaving employees who had an expectation of a reasonable income in retirement high and dry. In recognition of the problems we have witnessed with defined benefit pension schemes, where solvent and profitable companies walk away from their obligations, Fianna Fáil has brought forward a Bill which has gone through Second Stage and has been referred to the Select Committee on Social Protection to amend the Pensions Act 1990 which would provide for an appeals mechanism where a pension scheme is being wound up by the trustees of that scheme.

We need to have a serious debate on pension provision in Ireland. Deputy O'Dowd referred to this earlier where we have a situation where many people, mainly women, are being denied a full State pension on retirement. There is not an estate in my constituency, and I am sure it is the same in the Minister's, where one does not meet at least one woman who has suffered this predicament, having taken time out of service, in most cases to raise a family, she is denied the full pension. We also have a situation where people are being forced to retire at 65 years but cannot access their entitlements to a State pension until they are 66 years. We have what has often been described as the pensions crisis where the rate of supplementary pension coverage in Ireland is estimated at just above one third of the working population when the private sector is considered in isolation. Fine Gael has been in office for six years and it is well past time that this was addressed. We would welcome the opportunity to address this in the House.

The Minister mentioned a number of provisions in the Bill. I welcome that in the quarterly publication of those who have committed fraud the names of those who appeal successfully are not published. On some of the administrative changes, the Minister has had a few weeks to mull over the difference between mandatory and compulsory and I look forward to hearing her clarification on this as will the public. The Minister's remarks caused confusion among people who cannot see much of a difference between mandatory and compulsory, and her response seemed to imply that there was one. Anything I have experienced which was mandatory seemed compulsory.

Welfare fraud plays a significant part in the Bill. The press release which accompanied the publication of the general scheme of the Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registration Bill stated that while the outcomes of individual prosecutions for welfare fraud are covered routinely in local and national media, the publication of a list in this way will send a stronger message to the number of people who are prepared to risk defrauding the welfare system and their fellow citizens. I deliberately left the word "small" out when I read this sentence in terms of the number of people who are prepared to risk defrauding the welfare system.

I have had experience, particularly in the last eight or nine months, of vulnerable people, elderly people and not-so-elderly people who, having applied for services from the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection have had an unannounced call to the house. I understand why the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection does this, and it does so quite regularly, but it really frightens people. It intimidates many people and unsettles and distresses people who are already on the back foot. They do not know why the person has called. I have written to the Minister on this subject and she was generous and sensitive in her responses but it happens. If a social protection official arrived at my house unannounced my natural reaction would be to wonder what I had done wrong. It has to be handled sensitively. I also recognise that the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection officers are handling taxpayers' money and I appreciate that but there must be sensitivity.

When we talk about fraud the context of the size of the Department's budget must always be considered. It accounts for one third of the entire public expenditure which is €58 billion. The figure for fraud amounts to €41 million. If one does a very rough and crude calculation, that means there is €20 fraud for every €29,000 spent by the Department.

See this speech in context