Brendan Ryan (Labour)

Where did the Government get the advice that a bureaucrat can decide that something has been done through fraud? There is no adjudication by any court on this issue, it is not being suggested that an individual will be brought to court in order retrieve the money. What is being said is that some bureaucrat or whiz kid executive of a new agency will decide that the agency has been defrauded. He or she can write to the HSE, which will in turn look at the case and write to another bureaucrat.

It should be remembered that we are talking about the most obscure agency the State has ever seen. The incapacity of the HSE to provide information should be mentioned if one wants to reduce six Members to foaming incoherence. It does not matter if the Members are from the Government or Opposition side. No agency I am aware of reduces Members to such foaming incoherence as when they are brought together to list the inabilities of the HSE in dealing with people on the most routine matters. We are now supposed to believe that the agency will develop a significant level of sensitivity. This agency has stated it is not competent enough to hand out money, yet it believes itself to be competent enough to make judgments on whether people committed fraud.

Where is the legal expertise available to the HSE, which has stated it cannot hand back the money which it took off people? It can apparently only deal with money in one direction. It could take money very efficiently and, as it turned out, illegally. Various agencies could do likewise. Although the executive could take money from one channel, it has found itself incapable of sending money down another channel. Nevertheless, it still feels capable of labelling an action fraudulent.

There is not even a definition of fraud in the Bill. The executive will apparently recognise fraud and ask for the money back when appropriate. It will be up to the individuals concerned to go to court. The people concerned should be noted, who will be older people, their children, or those in charge of older persons' estates. They will start with the old people. The executive will tell these people that they defrauded the executive. That is wonderful.

One would think that in order to avoid the risk of further hurt to older people, we would have put in place some way of ensuring that such action was not taken unless there is proof. There is no proof. The section states:

Where it comes to the knowledge of the scheme administrator that—

(a) all or part of the payment of a prescribed repayment to a person has been procured through fraud or misrepresentation,

This does not force the scheme administrator — a private agency — to prove anything. The term "comes to the knowledge" is a wonderful phrase which does not often come up. It is a bit better than an opinion.

The issue will be handled badly by an agency which will not perform nearly as well the Government would have us believe. The matter of the working families tax allowance in Britain is relevant. It is a wonderful idea which has been handled so badly in Britain that it could well cost the British Labour Party the next general election. A number of mistakes were made in the assessment, and six months later people received a brutal letter looking for money to be returned.

I do not understand why a simple process was not outlined, particularly for cases where mistakes are made by the paying body. A simple stipulation could have been inserted to reassure people that a process exists to get the mistake adjudicated on by somebody independent, and a way of repaying money could be outlined. This does not relate to staged payments of €20 per month. This outlines payment on demand, or else court proceedings will take place.

I am surprised. I did not follow the legislation through the Dáil, but once I read the section I wondered where our heart had gone.