Séamus Healy (Tipperary, Workers and Unemployed Action Group) | Oireachtas source

The priority of this Bill should have been to reverse the savage cuts and austerity that the past two Governments visited on ordinary people. Instead, this legislation is taking the opportunity to demonise social welfare recipients. The dishonest claim of high levels of fraud was a cynical tactic used by the then Minister for Social Protection to promote himself and his recent campaign for Taoiseach. There is a very low level of fraud in this country. Research shows that the largest proportion of funding lost is lost through administrative error, some customer error but not fraud. The fraud levels here compare very favourably with the 2% to 5% levels in the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States of America and New Zealand. The proposals in this Bill for publication of names, addresses, fines and penalties make no distinction between someone who has been convicted for a relatively minor offence and someone who has habitually committed serious fraud.

Recovery of overpayments is a question I come across regularly at clinics. Most of these are due to administrative error or errors by applicants. Thankfully the Government's proposal to recover 25% and recover repayments by way of that deduction has been dropped from the legislation. The situation is very difficult and needs to be reviewed. The Department is allowed to deduct 15% from the social welfare rate for overpayments. That is being used as the normal and only rate of deduction, in most cases without any consultation with the applicants. In many cases where there is consultation, and that is a small percentage, it was implemented before the applicant made his case and returned it to the Department. It has been automatically deducted. That is wrong and should be reviewed by the Minister and stopped. If there is an overpayment to a person on jobseeker's allowance of €193 a week, whether through administrative error or an error on the part of the recipient, 15% is routinely deducted. That person loses just under €29 a week and receives a payment of €164.05. It is not possible to live on that. That needs to be examined urgently.

A new unit was set up some time ago to trawl for overpayments. It goes back years.

I have seen cases where it went back 21 years, and looked at situations that were closed off for that length of time. They are also trawling back that far for very small sums of money. That should be looked at. If something has been dormant for five, ten, 15 or 20 years, it should be written off. How can anyone make their case years down the line. It is very difficult to retain documentation. It is very difficult for someone to make his or her case when they are trying to account for something so far down in the past.

I have concerns about the public service card. It is moving in the direction of a mandatory identity card. If it is to be introduced, it must be done on a voluntary basis. How secure is the data on these cards and who and what agencies have access to it? Now that we are outsourcing some social welfare schemes, will these private companies which are operating on behalf of the Department entitled to receive the recipients' data that is held on these cards? That should be examined.

Turas Nua and the JobPath programme is completely inflexible. Once one is referred to one of these schemes, one cannot take up another scheme. I dealt with a case recently where a man was interviewed for a CE scheme on a Friday, told on Monday he had a place on the scheme and would start on the following Monday, but then on Tuesday he had a letter from Turas Nua to say that he had been referred to its scheme the previous week. It was the first he heard of that but he was not allowed to take up his place on the CE nevertheless, despite interventions across the board. I know from talking to Deputies in the House that this is happening across the country.

Others have raised the situation faced by women regarding the State pension. This is something that I come across regularly at my clinics as, I am sure, do other Deputies. The regulations were changed by the former leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Joan Burton, of all people. Now we have a situation where women who had breaks in their employment to work at home to rear their children now find themselves with either no pensions or their pensions are significantly reduced. That is not good enough. If nothing else, the Government should take the opportunity of this Bill to deal with this question and ensure that women who were in employment and then looked after their children and reared them at home and then returned to work are entitled to their full pension, as was the case.

I agree with other Deputies that the qualifying age should be re-examined. It was another austerity measure introduced by the Labour Party in the last Government. We now have a situation where State pensions are not paid to people until they are 66 years and there is a hiatus between 65 when many people have to leave employment and 66 years. In the future, the age will increase to 68 years and recent reports that there is talk that it will be 70 years. The pension age should be returned to 65 years and people should have the option to work on if they wish. This should be looked at in this Bill.

One category of social welfare recipients who were badly hit in the years of austerity through cuts introduced by Deputy Joan Burton were one-parent families. We know that poverty is rampant among one-parent families. There are children who go to bed and to school hungry. This is supposed to be a republic of opportunity. The Minister and the Government should now take the opportunity in this Bill to reverse the cuts that were made because they are causing havoc in one-parent families, especially for the children. The situation in which one-parent families, and particularly the children, find themselves is a disgrace to the State.

I wanted to refer to a number of other areas quickly, although my time is running out. The Department is effectively promoting the payment of social welfare payments through banks. That should be stopped and promote their payment through An Post services throughout the country. It is a vital service in rural Ireland. If the social welfare payments are removed or significantly reduced we will see hundreds of post offices close in rural Ireland.

The right of social welfare recipients to purchase local authority houses should also be looked at.

See this speech in context