Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 15:

In page 19, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:“(3) The powers conferred on the Minister by this section of this Bill shall not be utilised until after the Department of Social Protection make all reasonable efforts to recover these payments through installed repayments.”.

The Minister will be aware of concerns expressed by Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, about this amendment, and I share some of them. This permits attachment of payments, including lump sums due under the redundancy payments Acts and the protection of employees (employers' insolvency) Acts apparently without the consent of the claimant. The proposal must be seen in the context of the fact that redundancy payments are a resource to a household to compensate for a loss of employment and income and that it would allow recovery from a person at a time when a household is at its most vulnerable following a loss of a job. The concern relates to the lack of an adequate, objective and fair system to ensure claimants and their families are not subjected to hardship in the calculation of what should be taken.
The concern is exacerbated by current practice in the recovery of overpayments under section 13 of the 2012 Act which permits the Department to recover historic overpayments from claimants up to 15% of their basic social welfare payment, and more than 15% if the claimant agrees. I understand that until these changes are introduced, the maximum the Department can take is €2. If that is the case, I have a certain sympathy with the Department's wish to increase that and have no problem with it in principle. According to FLAC, the Department always seeks to recover the full 15% without any evidence that the person's capacity to pay has adequately been taken into account.
There is also the question of the statutory right to a redundancy lump sum. In practice, where an employer does not pay a lump sum, it could take up to two years to get a determination. Once such a determination is issued, an application is made to the Minister for payment. However, this could be wiped out by an alleged overpayment which the claimant has not had the opportunity to challenge. Claimants' rights to fair procedures must be safeguarded and provided for in section 14. I share the view that the section is essentially unfair and has the effect of defeating a statutory right to a redundancy payment. The proposal is that section 14 should be amended to include detailed procedures to permit due process and fair procedures to a person who might be subject to these powers before any payment is recovered in this way. If this is not possible immediately, the section should not be commenced until such processes, including right of appeal, are in place. No sum should ever be recovered that risks a claimant's income falling below adequate levels.