Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. As she will be aware, a number of our amendments were rejected in the other House and, consequently, we are not supportive of the Bill. We admit that social protection payments provide vital support for people and at a time of constrained budgets, it is vital that the budget is spent in the most effective manner possible. Effective control measures are essential to the operation of the social protection system. It is important, however, that this work is done in a manner that recognises the overwhelming majority of welfare recipients are fully entitled to their payments and that the majority of errors that occur cannot be blamed on the customer.

The family income supplement is an excellent means of supporting low income families in employment and we welcome the increase in the minimum period for receipt of FIS but further work needs to be done to eliminate poverty traps. The Government should heed the warning this week from the European Commission which states that the loss of supplementary payments, in particular rent supplement and medical cards, on return to employment makes it more difficult for people to take up work.

We are very concerned by the language in section 3, which appears to open the possibility of the social welfare payments system being moved from the post office network. My colleague, Deputy O'Dea, raised an issue I am not so sure the Minister clarified on Report Stage in the other House. The Minister referred to legal challenges and said this is the main reason she has changed the wording to remove the reference to An Post and to supplement it with payment service provider. I understand that Deputy O'Dea referred to a High Court judgment of 2007 where the High Court threw out the challenge. This was based on a consolidation Act of 2005 which referred specifically to An Post. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified where the 2007 Act comes into all of this and whether it supports her view that removing the reference to An Post is to offset any potential legal challenge.

There is one element of this on which I would be curious to establish the Minister's thinking. The simple reality is that more and more people who have bank accounts are getting electronic payments into them. How will that be addressed? How will we square that circle? In the context of the contract the Department has given for cash payments, in the future, more and more people will get their money directly by electronic transfer and will, in turn, use debit cards at ATMs to get their money without even having to queue in the bank. I am anxious to know the Minister's thinking on the future of the post office network in terms of its relationship with her Department because one cannot be like King Canute and stop the waves if more and more people opt for electronic payments. Is there some way for An Post to develop its own banking system? I would like the Minister to refer to that.

Section 7 provides that where a qualified adult of a claimant for jobseeker's allowance, etc., is resident outside the State, payment of an increase in respect of that qualified adult will not be payable. We suggest this rule may be unfair to people in some exceptional cases - for example, where a person is temporarily resident outside the State in order to take care of an ill relative and they have bills to pay at home. Will they fail to be protected?

Sections 13 to 15, inclusive, provide for the recovery of sums due by deduction from certain payments. Although this is a good way to recover overpayment debts and tackling fraud, many, or even most, overpayment debts arise as a result of a mistake and not fraud. Therefore, it should be made clear in the legislation that the recovery of overpayments in the way envisioned by these provisions should be a last resort.

Section 20 puts certain obligations on trustees. However, there is no penalty contained in the Bill for failure to comply with these obligations. We believe there should be sanctions for failure to comply.

I understand perfectly from where the Minister is coming in regard to the inclusion of Irish Water as a specified body for purposes of using PPSNs and I do not have a difficulty with it in principle. However, it may be a cause for concern because a person's PPSN is a very personal piece of information and it may be undesirable for commercial entities, such as Irish Water, to have access to such personal information. I would like to be assured that usage by Irish Water of this would be very specific and that it would be for the measures outlined and not, for example, to sell it on, for third party use or for any of that type of activity.

The Minister will be aware that FLAC made a number of submissions which were referred to during the debate in the Dáil but I would like to put them on the record. One of the recommendations was that there should be a reasonable lead-in time between the publication of social welfare and pensions legislation and its debate in the Oireachtas and that the explanatory memorandum accompanying Bills include the proposed text of the consolidated social welfare legislation to give context to the technical and textual amendments proposed. It also recommends that following the enactment of this legislation, the Minister's Department should seek prioritisation of the consolidation of social welfare legislation under the Law Reform Commission's programme of statute law restatement consolidating all amendments into a single text.

While the Bill may outline certain clear areas of intent, on ploughing through it, one finds so many references to the principal Act that the text is rendered extremely technical, complex and obscure. There must be a better legislative model available. I ask the Minister to comment.
The third recommendation is to remove and revise section 8(4)(i) to ensure all families in need of an adequate income to support their children are treated equally in terms of eligibility for family income supplement, regardless of the relationship status of the parents. The fourth recommendation is that the proposed new paragraphs 246(1)(d) and 246(1)(e), as proposed in section 10, be deleted. The final recommendation is that section 14 be amended to include detailed procedures to permit due process and fair procedures to a person who may be subject to these powers before any payment is recovered in this way. If this is not immediately possible, the section should not be commenced until such processes, including a right of appeal, are in place. No sums should ever be recovered that risk a claimant falling below adequate income levels. I am sure the Minister subscribes to that view.
I would be grateful to the Minister for clarification on the issue of overpayments. The perception is that most overpayments arise as a result of error rather than fraud. Is that the case?
The payment of child benefit in respect of non-resident children has been a contentious subject in the United Kingdom. The issue should not be exploited in a manner that undermines the excellent relations between Irish people and eastern European communities which reside here. Any changes should be pursued with our European partners on the basis of consensus. Fianna Fáil proposes that where a child is resident in another European Union member state while a parent is working here, child benefit should be paid at the same rate at which it is paid in the country in which the child is resident. This change would require the agreement of other EU member states.