David Cullinane (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

The points I have raised on overpayments have been raised in the past and we will continue to raise them. I found the Tánaiste's response to be somewhat flippant and in stark contrast to the Minister of State's, who was quite engaging on the issues. The Tánaiste knows full well from previous discussions we have had on this that there is a clear distinction between those who are engaged in fraud and criminality and who are trying to defraud the social welfare system and situations in which genuine mistakes were made by the Department or individuals themselves resulting in overpayments. We are trying to be fair and to ensure there is a fair process. There are many people who, because of genuine mistakes, sometimes not of their doing, end up living below what is the minimum threshold because of the 15% reduction.

The final paragraph of the Community Law and Mediation report, which for me sums up the argument, reads:

Based on our experience of dealing with clients who have received overpayment letters and have been subjected to deductions of 15%, and on the feedback of attendees at the roundtable, we submit that these cuts are indeed forcing people into destitution and poverty and are in clear breach of the Department's own threshold of a "basic minimum income" in the form of the [social welfare assistance rate].

This potential effect was flagged in the joint Community Law and Mediation-Free Legal Advice Centres submission in December 2012, which is referred to in the document. It further reads:

Many participants at the roundtable, in particular those working with the Citizens Information Centres and the National Advocacy Service spoke of their first hand experience of the hardship caused to their clients as a direct result of the deduction of €28 from their basic payments. In many cases, the overpayments related to historic debts, some over 20 years old. Clients had received letters from the Department simply advising that the deduction of 15% would be made from the relevant payment and providing neither evidence as to how the debt arose nor the original decisions from Deciding Officers. In many cases, given the age of the debt clients could not recall the existence of the debt nor any details regarding the amount.

This is the basis for the two recommendations, namely, that people not be allowed to fall below poverty levels and the introduction of a Statute of Limitations. I would go further. I agree with the Tánaiste that there are people who defraud the social welfare system. Those people will get no support from me and should be dealt with harshly because what they do impacts on people who genuinely need payments. I am speaking in this regard about people in respect of whom the Department might have made a mistake or who themselves may have made a genuine mistake. That clear distinction should be made. Instead, what is being provided for is a one-fits-all rule which I do not believe is fair.