Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this particularly important Bill, having over the years and always, like everybody else in this House, experienced first-hand how a certain number of people, obviously, need the support of social welfare. It is a very large number of people, in fact, be it pensions, various social welfare payments, unemployment alleviation measures or whatever. I listened to the comments of other speakers relating to welfare fraud. I think we need to be very careful not to give the impression that we tolerate fraud, whether it is welfare fraud or any other fraud. The word fraud suggests that it is deliberately set about or deliberately done, and is acceptable in some circumstances. In actual fact, it is not. It deprives other people who are entitled to a particular payment, for the purposes of this exercise, and makes it more difficult to fund the services that are provided for them.

However, my experience has been that most overpayments that I have come across - I have come across as many as anybody else - come as a result of the individual not knowing what he or she was supposed to do in particular circumstances. In some cases, in fact, the Department has been informed, for example, that the person has gone back to work, presuming that as a result of that the arrangements were made to ensure that no further welfare payment was forthcoming. That does not always happen. I do not know why that is. It should be fairly simple. In today's age of modern technology, it should be very simple. One should be able to press a button and, presto, it takes place. There is a need for an improvement of this system whereby when people tell the Department that they do not qualify for a payment anymore because of a change in circumstances, it should automatically follow that they do not have to undergo any further examination or penalty with regard to that, which very often revolves around repaying, over a period of time, a sum that is quite beyond their ability in some cases. I know there is a 15% minimum deduction, but it is a disincentive to going back to work. The person who is back to work is still worse off by virtue of having to repay. I am not suggesting for a moment that they should not, but I am suggesting that earlier intervention and recognition by the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection will result in there being no need to go that route at all.

The other issue that needs to be dealt with and is ongoing, which I have spoken about many times before in the House as have others, is the question of self-employed or partners of self-employed people, be they shopkeepers or professional people or their spouses, who by virtue of their professions are self-employed and have a spouse who works with him or her in the course of the employment. The Department has to decide whether a partnership exists. It does not always follow that the Department will approve that partnership, which it should to allow both respondents to avail of a contributory old age pension in view of the fact they have made their contributions. I know a provision was made some time ago by the previous Minister to address the issue of those who have made contributions and are short. However, it did not address the issue in its entirety. It addressed part of it. A person who was one or two years short of contributions which would enable him or her to qualify for an old age contributory pension found himself or herself still short by a small number of contributions. I know there has to be a cut-off point somewhere, but there is one point that I am absolutely certain about and it is this. If deductions are made to somebody, self-employed or otherwise, in respect of his or her old age pension or whatever pension, then if he or she is not going to get a payment, he or she should get those deductions refunded. It is as simple as that. That is about to happen in law too.

There are other issues that need to be addressed. One that has come up in recent times is where Intreo staff interviews the recipient and says that he or she has to go back to work. Say it is a mother with three children. She cannot go back to work. It is as simple as that. If she goes back to work, she has to get child minders to mind the children while she is at work. She cannot go back to work. The result is that her payment is cut off. As a result, a serious situation naturally arises, particularly if they live in private rented accommodation. The private rented accommodation means that if the spouse is at work on low pay employment, they suffer serious difficulties and a serious disadvantage as a result of being in that particular situation and are dependent on social welfare for rent support, which they probably will not get.

I realise that I will have another opportunity to pursue this particular issue a little further.

See this speech in context