Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Zappone for putting forward the amendment, although I do not propose to accept it. We had a very long discussion about this and we went through the various sections that set out in some detail what each element of this change means. Essentially, the Department is being given power to recover overpayments, as we are required to do arising from successive reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General. This is to target people who no longer receive a social welfare payment who have a capacity to repay a social welfare overpayment but have repeatedly refused to do so.

The term "overpayment", which is used in the notice of attachment provisions, has the ordinary meaning given to the word. That is to say it is the payment of money in excess of what is due.

I put it to Senator Zappone that as there is no ambiguity, there is no need to delimit or extend the meaning of this word in the context of the notice of attachment provisions. It is not considered necessary to include a specific definition of the word "overpayment" for the purpose of these provisions. As I said, we propose to be very much guided by the arrangements the Revenue Commissioners make. We have detailed provisions in the Bill. As I explained yesterday, it will take staff in the Department a couple of months to prepare detailed guidelines. This legislation will come into force when that work is done by way of a commencement order.

I appreciate and understand Senator Zappone's concerns but the communication, as with Revenue communications, in the case of the employer does not go into any detail. It is just a change in respect of the deduction arrangements. As the Senator knows, these happen on a very widespread basis in respect of taxation. People get changes in certificates and have underpayments, overpayments and changes to their allowances. There is no proposal to have any particular contact in the sense of discussing in any way with the employer the private affairs of its employee. The employer is simply facilitating in the case of tax, PRSI and social welfare appropriate deductions that need to be made. It would be improper if the Department of Social Protection was involved in communication with the employer as to the detail or cause because that is a matter of privacy and confidential personal information for the employee. I understand what the Senator is trying to achieve, namely, to not cause any negativity to the reputation of the employee but I suspect that the actual impact might not be what the Senator intends, namely, an attempt to offer some protection to an employee. I am not sure it would achieve that. It might only draw attention to the situation whereas there is just an arrangement as with taxation where an extra amount is due and it is being facilitated through the employee's wages.

We should bear in mind that employees make arrangements in respect of court orders and relationship settlements. I am not aware that they are entered into in any great detail because these are, essentially, very private matters. For example, the arrangement relating to wages in the case of relationship breakdown is to facilitate orders for maintenance. It is not really appropriate to get involved in the detail or give rise to questions as to how this arose and what it is about. It would be better for it to be just a routine arrangement, as happens with the tax system.