Regina Doherty (Meath East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I disagree with the Deputy. The reason for publishing their names is obvious, that is, to act as a deterrent for people who think it is okay to defraud the State. There are plenty of instances where people make mistakes and they will never see the inside of a court room. Deputy O'Dea is aware that we only take people to court in the first instance if the amount by which they have defrauded the State is in excess of €5,000. People who have been overpaid, who forgot to sign off for a couple of weeks and those who are guilty of no more than normal human error will never see the inside of a court room.

The Department has given consideration to the proposal and how it might best work. Concerns relating to the threshold and the legal soundness of same are behind the redrafting of the amendment. The impact of a threshold could be that convictions for some of the most serious offences prosecuted would not ever be published while at the same time, convictions for what might appear to be relatively lesser offences would be published. This is considered arbitrary, unfair and contrary to the objectives of the Department. Very serious offences which may never have any monetary value attached to or related to them because they were detected before a claim went to payment would not be published if a threshold is introduced. Employer prosecutions relating to obstruction or non-compliance with PRSI obligations, for example, would not ever have a monetary value. Therefore, we would not be able to publish details on such rogue employers and I believe that is wrong. We should be able to do so and the advice has come back to that effect.

See this speech in context