Rónán Mullen (Independent)

I thank the Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, for his comments on this proposal and welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Joe Costello, who has just come into the House. I also thank Senators Sean Barrett, Darragh O'Brien, Deirdre Clune, Feargal Quinn, John Gilroy and Kathryn Reilly for their contributions.

There are two core aspects to this Bill. First is the criminal offence aspect whereby a particular onus is placed on businesses receiving overpayments to take certain steps. The second aspect is the ability of or requirement on the Minister to put in place a mechanism to allow a person formally to make a complaint and for that complaint to be investigated. I am disappointed by the evidence in the Minister's response to the proposal of lazy thinking by the Department. My first difficulty in bringing forward the Bill was in establishing whether it came under the remit of the Department of Justice and Equality or the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation. There was a sense that each was trying to palm it off on the other. It is hardly surprising, in that context, that the Minister should complain that he has had limited time to study the Bill, but that is not my fault.

I am especially disappointed the Minister does not seem to be interested in exploring whether there is a problem in this area. There is an obvious way of identifying whether money is left lying in bank accounts, as we saw in the bringing forward of the dormant accounts legislation. I accept it is not so easy to identify where what is referred to in this Bill is happening. Logic would surely dictate, however, that if the Minister is not convinced there is a great problem, he can hardly argue the measures I propose will impose an onerous requirement on businesses or on his Department. He cannot have it both ways.

We are dealing here with the mentality of light touch regulation. It is all very well for the Minister to talk about better regulation and avoiding a harsh regulatory regime, but what we are really talking about is a laissez-faire approach and a lack of sympathy with those who might lose out as a result of making an overpayment. The Minister failed to acknowledge that when it comes to doing business, it is those who charge out for services who have the primary responsibility to reconcile payments received with services or goods given. As Senator Gilroy observed, it hardly seems likely that an underpayment would ever be a relevant issue. A person will not disclose that he or she has deliberately made an underpayment. In any case, where an underpayment is made, it will appear in the next statement. There has been no response to the provisions in this legislation which seek to criminalise that which should manifestly be criminalised, namely, any misstatement or omission in respect of an overpayment, something which does, unfortunately, happen in business.

The Minister did not respond either to the expert evidence on which this Bill relies. The Irish Institute of Credit Management might not have existed for all his response had to say about its concerns. Once again, I must conclude there is a degree of lazy thinking within the Department and a type of cavalier, hands-off attitude to good ethics in business, which is partly what has led our country into its recent difficulties. There is a certain lack of interest in any problem that is not already hitting us over the head.

Senators O'Brien, Reilly and others asked that I consider certain amendments, which I will be willing to do. In response to Senator Clune, I initially intended to provide for a 20-day period within which a receiving entity must inform a payer of an overpayment. However, I opted instead for 60 days in recognition of the day-to-day reality of what goes on in businesses. I thank the Senator for raising this point. She was right to do so because when I initially advised people of what would be contained in the Bill, a 20-day timeframe was what I envisaged. Several speakers suggested the minimum threshold of €25 should be reconsidered.

I am not sure whether the Minister makes a relevant comparison in pointing to federal legislation in the United States. I accept his point in regard to the particular issue of procurement by the State and overpayments arising from that. Apart from the fact the State should be interested in recouping any moneys lost through overpayment, it is consistent with good business practice and facilitating of ethical practice that any party that makes an overpayment should be in a position to recoup the moneys. It could be a potential source of funds for the State, as in the case of dormant accounts. That alone should have led to a more constructive, intellectually curious and inquiring approach from the Department as to what is proposed. It is almost as if it wants to deny there is a problem and would prefer if people would not come forward with evidence of such. That is a very regrettable attitude in our current straitened circumstances.

The Minister questioned whether the provisions could be applicable to the State because an overpayment is defined as a payment received by an undertaking or by a person in the course of a trade. The definition of "person" in the legislation includes a body corporate. I would have been open to an amendment seeking to ensure public bodies involved in procurement and which make overpayments are covered. That was certainly my intent. Again, I am surprised this issue has been put up as a major objection by the Minister when it could be more properly the source of a constructive amendment proposal.

I regret what can only be described as the non-engagement of the Department with these proposals. That is not good enough given the issues at stake and the broader question of business ethics. Given the potential for money savings to the State, the Minister should at the very least have undertaken to investigate the proposals further. I wonder about the negligent attitude that underlies his deficient response. Again, I thank everybody, including the Minister, who took the time to respond, particularly those who offered amendment suggestions. Unfortunately, the Bill seems unlikely to proceed to Committee Stage, but I certainly will be putting it to a vote.