Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 19 Jun 2018

Vol. 970 No. 4

Priority Questions

Child Benefit Reform

Willie O'Dea

Question:

34. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection if she will address her recent comments on child benefit; her plans generally for this universal payment; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26409/18]

My question concerns recent comments made by the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, Deputy Regina Doherty, that she was prepared to look at the question of child benefit payable to people on salaries of more than €100,000 per annum. When the Minister says she will look at something, I presume she means that she will either means test it or tax it. I have tabled this question to give the Minister an opportunity to state unequivocally the Government's position in this regard here and on the record of the House.

Given the week I have had, I appreciate the Deputy putting this question.

Child benefit is a monthly payment made to families with children in respect of all qualified children up to the age of 16 years. It is designed as a universal payment in recognition of the costs involved in raising children and plays an important role in tackling poverty. As a universal payment, it does not rely on a means test or social insurance contributions. The payment continues to be paid in respect of children up to their 18th birthday who are in full-time education or who have a disability. Child benefit is paid to almost 629,000 families in respect of nearly 1.2 million children, with an estimated expenditure of more than €2 billion in 2018.

In recent days I have made my position on the child benefit payment very clear. I thank the Deputy for giving me the opportunity to explain it on the record of the House. I will not, and I have never intended to, introduce a means test for child benefit. Means-testing child benefit is not being considered by Government and is not provided for in the programme for Government. Government policy is to provide additional supports for parents and their children through increased services rather than through increased cash transfers. This includes such services as free early years education through the early childhood care and education, ECCE, scheme, and enhanced provision of affordable childcare.

As the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection, I genuinely and wholeheartedly support the universality of the child benefit payment, the system we have, and the principle that all families with children should receive this income support.

I thank the Minister for making the position crystal clear so now we all know exactly where we stand. Would she agree with me that the universality of child benefit stems from the fact that we are talking about horizontal equity?

In other words, resources are taken from people without children and given to those with them because the latter obviously have more expenses. Any means-testing or taxing of the benefit would be contrary to the principle of horizontal equity.

The Minister stated that her focus was on increasing services such as childcare rather than increasing cash benefits. Does that mean that we are entering a situation in which the amount payable in child benefit will effectively be frozen for the foreseeable future as resources are directed more and more towards child services?

The universality of the payment is a recognition of the fact that families with children have higher costs than those without. That has always been the principle and, given that it is enshrined in my personal belief, will remain so for as long as I am Minister.

My comments do not mean that anything will be frozen. Rather, we are using whatever money we have to try to improve and expand the range of public services. We all recognise that these are badly needed, in particular financially supported childcare, of which there is a major deficit. Stemming from the conversation that gave rise to the reporting, addressing that deficit is one of our country-specific objectives in the current EU semester, but there are also other measures, for example, medical care for children. We have free GP access for children under six years of age. The programme for Government would like to extend that. We added a second year to the early childhood care and education, ECCE, year that was introduced by the Deputy's Government. We would like to maintain and extend that scheme, increase capitations and improve quality. This is all about increasing and improving the range of services that the public service can offer people.

Can I take it that the Mangan report is effectively a dead letter now? Does the Minister have plans to make further changes? I am not referring to increases, but to structural reforms in the child benefit system. For example, one of the suggestions in the Mangan report was for larger amounts to be paid to lower income families. However, I recognise that this would be a form of means testing.

When I was asked about the Mangan report at the Institute of International and European Affairs, IIEA, conference, I said that I would be open to reading it and considering its contents. I have never read it but would not be arrogant enough not to see the value in examining something. The Government and I have no plans to means test. It is probably with good reason that the Mangan report was not acted upon when it was given to the then Minister for Social Protection in 2013. I am reading it, but only out of curiosity, not out of intent or will to make specific changes.

To help prevent child poverty, particularly through the payment's universality, my Department will ensure that child benefit remains as is and that we increase the spread of the working family payment. Last year, I started increasing children-specific qualified benefits. It was the first such increase in eight years. With everyone's co-operation, I hope to be able to do so again this year. Next week, we will announce the back to school and clothing allowances for 2018. My Department handles a myriad of supports for families with children. I would like to see us collectively extending those so as to ensure that such families are supported financially where they are not in a position to look after themselves.

Defined Benefit Pension Schemes

John Brady

Question:

35. Deputy John Brady asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection the protections in place for the 1,200 defined benefit scheme members in a company (details supplied) whose scheme is to close on 30 June 2018; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26671/18]

On 30 June, the defined benefit pension scheme of 1,200 Irish Life employees will close.

As we are all aware, all Irish defined benefit pension schemes have a rule that allows the employer to cease contributions, usually after a notice period. There is no legislative obligation on an employer to make contributions or any further liability on that employer where contributions cease, nor is there an obligation on an employer to give notice to members or to consult in advance of ceasing contributions. Accordingly, neither the Pensions Authority nor I have the power under legislation to intervene to compel an employer to continue to make contributions into a scheme.

Even when a scheme is closed to new members or to the future accrual of benefits, the sponsoring employer role continues in respect of that scheme. Where a defined benefit scheme is closed to future accrual of benefits, which is not the same as being wound up, the scheme remains subject under EU and Irish law to the funding standard requirements and to the Pensions Act in general. It must continue to satisfy minimum funding standards into the future. It is important to note that the closure of a defined benefit scheme to future accrual does not mean its members will not receive a pension in line with the benefits that they accrued before the date of closure.

While it is not appropriate for me to comment on individual pension schemes, I am aware of the announcement of the closure of the Irish Life pension scheme to future accrual. I understand that the scheme is financially secure and its assets adequately cover all liabilities that would arise in the event of the trustees taking the decision to wind up the scheme.

As the Deputy is aware, I am finalising work to introduce extra protections for members of defined benefit pension schemes. I hope to be in a position to table those necessary legislative amendments on Committee Stage at the earliest possible opportunity. I hope this clarifies the matter for the Deputy.

I thank the Minister. Unfortunately, this is another case of an employer reneging on its employees' pension scheme. It has been happening consistently in recent years. It is also a case of the Government reneging on its responsibilities, given that this issue has been widely debated, including in the Chamber and by Oireachtas committees. There is considerable frustration. Irish Life workers have been left high and dry by the Government. The Minister is aware that the company's scheme is €240 million in surplus. The lack of action by the Government has not only given a green light to Irish Life to close down its defined benefit pension scheme, but to many other businesses as well.

The Minister alluded to the Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registration Bill 2017, which we are still awaiting. She stated that the Government was aware of the concerns and issues but did not have the power to intervene, so where are the necessary protections?

I am loath to discuss a specific company or scheme, but the Deputy is aware that the scheme in question is not being wound down. Rather, it is being closed to future entrants. The surplus within the scheme is sufficient should the trustees decide to make changes. As such, there is no immediate threat or risk to the scheme's current members.

While an obligation preventing employers from closing defined benefit schemes in certain circumstances may appear to provide stability and certainty for members, it might also achieve a less desirable outcome, for example, prompting well-funded schemes to wind up in order to avoid legislation, which is not something that we want to see. It could give a competitive advantage to employers that never provided a risk-free defined benefit pension scheme. It could impact on a company's creditors, including debts owed to other businesses and individuals. It could impact on the value of a company's shares, many of which might be held by other pension funds, credit unions or small-scale investors. As such, we need to be careful in the first instance about what we say about a particular company and, second, about our views on previous legislation, which was passed by a Fianna Fáil Government, and current Government legislation that is before the Houses.

The key issue is the shifting of pension risk from the employer to the employee. The Government seems to be deliberately dragging its heels in putting protections in place. The Bill passed Second Stage eight months ago and the committee has been screaming for it, but we are yet to see it. In my view and that of the people who are being impacted by this issue, there is a deliberate delaying of the necessary legislation by the Government.

Things will be very grim come 30 June for the 1,200 employees of Irish Life. The Government is standing idly by and doing nothing. It has completely ignored the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, review of Ireland's pension system and recommendations on defined benefit schemes. I ask the Minister to comment on that. Does she believe protections should be in place for employees in defined pension schemes whose employers have taken from the Government's dragging of its heels that they have a green light to close down these schemes?

The previous Government introduced increased protections for deferred members of defined benefit, DB, schemes that were wound up. The wind-up priority order was amended in the Social Welfare and Pensions (No. 2) Act 2013. Prior to those changes, pensioner benefits were given priority over the benefits of active and deferred member schemes. The changes to the wind-up priority order deprioritised a portion of pensioner benefits in the manner in which the resources of a scheme are distributed on the wind-up of a pension scheme. Those changes made more resources available to current workers in defined benefits schemes. The Social Welfare and Pensions Act 2012 required that a DB scheme hold additional funding in the form of a risk reserve by 2023. We have already made significant changes to how defined benefit schemes are managed. The Deputy is well aware that we have current legislation that has passed Second Stage.

It is being amended.

The Deputy knows where it is.

It has been eight months since Second Stage.

The Minister without interruption.

Some legislation takes eight years to go through this House. The Bill is a priority for me.

The Minister has given the green light to-----

The Minister without interruption.

The Deputy asked me a question and it would be nice if he let me answer it. There is a reason we take turns speaking during questions. He should allow me to speak. A few amendments to the Bill need to be finalised with the Attorney General to enable me to introduce them on Committee Stage. We hoped to take Committee Stage before the end of May but I am not ready to do so, for which I apologise. I hope to be ready before the House rises in July. We all want this Bill. There is not a competition of merit here. Deputy Brady and I want the same thing and there is no need to be adversarial about it. We want to introduce legislation that protects both workers-----

In what way is priority being given to protecting the employees concerned?

Sin é, we are moving on.

-----and the companies that pay into these defined benefit schemes to ensure everybody wins.

Pensions Reform

Willie O'Dea

Question:

36. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection the reason under the total contributions approach to pensions that is due to replace the current averaging approach, the baseline for qualification is forty years despite previous indications that it would be 30 years; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26410/18]

I tabled this question to elicit some clarification on the Government's proposed total contributions system for contributory old age pensions. A baseline of 30 years was discussed initially but the recently published Government paper refers to a baseline of 40 years. I understand from some comments made by the Minister at a committee meeting that the matter has not yet been finalised. I seek clarification on the issue.

We intend to introduce a total contributions approach to establishing a level of entitlement for all new contributory State pensions from 2020 onwards. The Roadmap for Pensions Reform 2018-2023 sets out how it is intended to implement the total contributions approach, TCA, to calculating entitlement to the contributory State pension. The criteria required for a full pension under that new approach have not yet been determined and are currently subject to a public consultation, which I launched a few weeks ago, on 28 May, and which will remain open until 3 September. Issues the Deputy raises, such as the number of years required for a full pension, are addressed in the consultative questions and the accompanying documentation. The final details will not be decided upon until I have considered all the submissions received in this process. For this reason, it will be important to have industry commentators and representative bodies present at the launch of the public consultation. We also need to receive submissions from many other bodies and I hope to arrange some form of roadshow by September. I do not mean to be disrespectful to the people who attended, to whom I am grateful, but I want to speak to real people and the workers of today who will be pensioners after 2020. I want to speak to people aged over 55 years and those who will be genuinely affected by the new approach. I want to have a proper conversation to ensure that when we all sit down after September we can collectively decide, with the Oireachtas committee, what the new model will look like. We will then be happy to stand over the new system because it will be in the interests of the people. The public consultation is available on my Department's website and I genuinely encourage all interested stakeholders to participate in the survey and make a submission before 3 September.

It is reassuring that the final determination has not yet been made on whether the baseline will be 30 or 40 years. In view of the fact that the self-employed only started making pension contributions in 1988, no self-employed person will qualify for the full pension in the year in which the new system kicks in. Does the Minister accept that such a scenario would be unfair?

The Minister acknowledged that some people may lose out under the new scheme. Let us assume a baseline of 40 years is adopted. Under the current system, a person with 20 years of contributions could receive up to 85% of a contributory pension, whereas under a total contributions system with a baseline of 40 years, that person would only receive 50% of a contributory pension. The Minister stated such a person would have an option to remain in the current system if he or she was adversely affected and worse off under the new system. Would such an arrangement be transitional and, if so, for how long would it last?

Self-employed people came into our current social insurance system in 1988 and, accordingly, such a person would have a maximum of 32 years of contributions when the total contributions approach becomes operational in 2020. Depending on the final determination of the number of contributions required in our new full State pension, this may pose a challenge for some of the people who will retire around that time. I set out this scenario in the consultation paper and it is possible that a transition period will be needed. I have also included a number of specific questions on this matter, including how we believe we should deal with it, how long the transition period should be and who should be included in the transition period. I genuinely hope that self-employed people log on and subscribe to give us their views.

As the Deputy noted, when we make changes to systems, there are normally winners and losers. I would like the system to be designed in such a way that there are no losers. I know that is exceptionally ambitious and will cost us but we do not want to change to a new system which leaves people behind with a bad taste in their mouths. I want everybody to appreciate that the new system we are moving towards is fairer than the current system. The proof will be in the pudding, however, and we must ensure the new system is fair and no one is left behind. Nothing is prescribed. We need to consider everyone's views on how best we can deliver a new model in January 2020 that will see us through the next generations.

I simply made the point that a 40-year baseline would discriminate against the self-employed who only joined the contributory pensions system in 1988, as the Minister correctly noted. I have another question on an issue about which I and other Deputies are receiving queries. The first hurdle to overcome before qualifying for a contributory old age pension is to have 520 paid contributions. The figure previously was 260. Is the figure of 520 contributions set in stone or is it up for discussion? If it is intended that it will remain in place, will it be possible, when calculating contributions, to count the new credits that will be provided for people who are looking after children, sick people and so forth?

Under the current system, a person must have a minimum of 520 contributions before he or she can qualify for payment. I do not see that changing unless we get an overwhelming response in the consultation that it should change. Any extra credits, such as illness and homemaking credits, must be added after the 520 contributions apply.

They are only used in calculating the amount of a pension.

Once a person has made the minimum of 520 paid contributions, the caring, illness and working abroad credits and any other credits that may be available are added to the 520 contributions. Nothing is prescribed in the public consultation. We want to hear what people have to say and, after 3 September, we want to arrive at a solution that we can all stand over and we are all happy with in order that it will last for generations.

Employment Rights

Willie Penrose

Question:

37. Deputy Willie Penrose asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection the number of calls received to the helpline established as part of the public awareness campaign on false self-employment; the number of emails received; the number of staff allocated to the campaign; and the number of new investigations opened by SCOPE since the launch as a result of communications received. [26541/18]

In recent years, bogus self-employment has become a curse or blight across the economy. We are all aware that false self-employment is prevalent and it has become rampant in certain sectors. We are also aware that self-employment is an important form of employment, which makes a significant contribution to the economy. I have been self-employed for the past 37 years. I have no doubt that the genuinely self-employed do not want people who are genuinely employed and should be classified as PAYE workers interspersed among their number. This practice deprives the Exchequer of the pot to which it is entitled for disbursement to ordinary workers.

The media campaign on false self-employment was aimed at ensuring there would be better public awareness of the important service the Department provided in determining employment status and helping to develop a better understanding of the scale and nature of false self-employment. The main advertising campaign was run over a two-week period, with digital and social media promotions continuing for a further two weeks. As a first step, the campaign directed people to a dedicated page on my Department's website. The website provides important information on the impact of false self-employment and the criteria used to determine whether someone is an employee or self-employed, as well as contact information for the Scope section within my Department, the Workplace Relations Commission and the Revenue Commissioners. The new web page attracted more than 10,500 visits during the campaign, with an average time of more than three minutes spent on the page, which is regarded as very favourable, given people's reduced attention span these days.

The Scope section received approximately 50 calls and 30 emails during the campaign from individuals who had become aware of the service directly as a result of the ad campaign. Feedback suggests the detailed information available on the dedicated website appears to have been successful in addressing issues for many people who contacted us. The majority of callers confirmed that they had visited the website first before contacting the Department. Ten formal applications for a Scope decision were registered in the first week.

Staff in the Scope section, the communications unit and the social welfare inspectorate were involved in the campaign as part of their regular duties. An additional executive officer, EO, has been allocated to the Scope section on a permanent basis. The Scope section has six EOs who are deciding officers. Social welfare inspectors are undertaking targeted employer inspections based on the feedback gathered during the campaign. They will focus on the sectors identified and companies reported to the Scope section during that time. While the number of direct contacts with the Scope section has been small, I am satisfied that the campaign has been successful in raising public awareness of the issue of false self-employment, but as the Deputy and I both know, we have a long way to go.

There is a set of winners and only one loser. The winners are the people who engage in bogus self-employment. Employers save on PRSI and taxation and are dodging the employment laws applicable to normal PAYE workers and the Social Insurance Fund receives less, as does everyone involved. Workers who are categorised falsely lose out on rights set out in employment legislation such as pay, including holiday pay, and redundancy payments - the whole shebang. I am not surprised the Minister did not receive an awful lot, as I do not think it was the right way to go about it. I know that she is into innovation and fair play to her, but my colleague, Mr. Jack O'Connor, dismissed the initiative on the basis that it was about as useful as an ashtray on a motor bike. In effect, an ashtray on a motor bike would mean one would get nothing. How could people take up the initiative? It is no wonder the number was small. There is a genuine fear. People do not become involved lightly. From talking to the Minister, I appreciate that that is what she wants and that she is committed to making various changes. I know that in her heart she wants the initiative to be a success, but if it is not as successful as she wants it to be, is she prepared to consider the legislative route?

New and legitimate forms of work have emerged and will continue to emerge. It is not just happening in Ireland. In fact, Ireland is probably lagging behind the rest of the world in the uptake of new forms of work, which is not bad. We constantly talk about bogus self-employment and attribute it to a particular industry, as if it were bad. People being made self-employed when they do not want to be and should not be is definitely not good, but the emergence of new ways of working is not bad. What I want to be sure about is that all of the standard employment rights for people with normal jobs are available to those who work in the gig or platform economy, as well as all of the benefits of which employees are able to avail under the social insurance system. We are improving all of them in another piece of legislation that will go through the House next week. I want to make sure the two situations stand equal with each other and will not stop as long as I am in this position. However, that does not directly answer the Deputy's question. I will continue to pursue research that may end up as legislation to address the large number who do it voluntarily or those who are made to do it, namely, those who declare to be self-employed in order to work on a contract basis with a company. These companies are not paying into the Social Insurance Fund for the people concerned and that is wrong. That is something we should pursue and it will have to be pursued with legislation. As the Deputy is well aware, it does not just come within the remit of my Department, but for as long as I am in this role it is something I will pursue.

I acknowledge that the Minister wants to root out this practice and deal with the primary motivation of rogue employers. A genuine employer does not want to misrepresent the status of his or her workers to avoid paying tax or PRSI, but fraud is fraud no matter where it occurs. If an ordinary worker fails to do something, the entire panoply of the State comes down on top of him or her over a few pence and he or she is named, blamed and shamed. The Labour Party introduced the Protection of Employment (Measures to Counter False Self Employment) Bill 2017 which took an holistic approach to determine and classify employment status. A clear set of rules was to be set out in statute law to apply to all State bodies and enforced across the board by the courts and administrative tribunals. It sought to amend tax law and measures on avoidance to deal with bogus self-employment and apply PRSI. If such a measure was in place, it would be a major deterrent. There would be no fear that anybody would want to classify one way or the other. Employers who might consider forcing a person to go down the route of false self-employment would think twice and probably five times before he or she would do so. I know that is what the Minister wants. Perhaps we might not need to go to these lengths and the Minister's campaign will succeed. I wish the initiative well because it is something on which the Labour Party has been very focused, together with the trade unions, and we will remain so until the issue is finally resolved and everybody is classified appropriately to their employment status.

I heard Mr. Jack O'Connor on radio on the day we launched the campaign and he was in flying form. If he was being paid by the word per minute, he would be a wealthy man. I wish him every success in County Wicklow when he runs in the next general election. I know that he will do well.

He will be with Deputy John Brady.

I hear what the Deputy is saying and while I do not wish to be disrespectful to him, it goes so far as to address the issue of those who are being forced to declare as self-employed, but many choose to be self-employed for a variety of reasons, including the flexibility offered by working for one company one month and another for three months or receiving a higher premium for working on a contract. These companies are not paying into the Social Insurance Fund and not doing anything wrong, but we are still not getting money from them for the State to pay benefits to the people who are self-employed to whom, as the Deputy is aware, they are being extended under the social insurance scheme. There are a number of things we could do and we should look at them collectively. One particular piece of legislation is only going to crack one nut. This is a bigger issue. However, we must be cognisant of the fact that there are new forms of work and that we need to encourage people into them as an entry level for young people in order that they can do so while in college and then move to proper careers once they qualify. However, we also need to make sure they retain the same employment rights as everyone else in a standard working environment.

Social Welfare Fraud

Willie O'Dea

Question:

38. Deputy Willie O'Dea asked the Minister for Employment Affairs and Social Protection her plans to publish the names of those who have been convicted of committing welfare fraud in excess of €5,000; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [26411/18]

As the Minister is aware, there was a great deal of opposition to the proposal first announced by her predecessor to publish the names of people who had been convicted of welfare fraud. She will also be aware that there is a section which provides for this in the famous Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registration Bill 2017, Committee Stage of which we are still awaiting. I want to find out what her intentions are in that regard. Is it still the intention of the Government to proceed with that proposal?

As the Deputy is well aware, my Department takes very seriously criminal prosecutions against persons who defraud the social welfare system and against employers who fail to carry out their statutory obligations under social welfare legislation. This reflects the Department's specific obligations to ensure the welfare system operates in a fair and cost effective way and that public funds are used for the purposes provided by the Oireachtas.

Section 4 of the Social Welfare, Pensions and Civil Registration Bill 2017 sets out to enable the publication of details of persons convicted of committing social welfare offences. The provision aims to make the Department's work in tackling fraud and abuse more transparent and increase the public's confidence that the social welfare system and the associated annual costs of up to €20 billion are secure from fraud and wrongful claiming.

In the debate on Second Stage of the Bill in this House I said the Government had agreed to consider an amendment to provide that only the names of individuals convicted where the fraud was for in excess of €5,000 would be published. The debate on Second Stage concluded on 4 October 2017.

I obtained Government approval to draft provisions for a number of additional items to be included in the Bill on Committee Stage subsequently. These provisions, relating to defined benefit pensions and GDPR, are currently being finalised with the support of the Attorney General’s office and the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. The Bill was provisionally scheduled for Committee Stage on 31 May but that date was postponed, hopefully for a short period, to allow for the finalisation of the necessary Government amendments. When these amendments have been finalised, I will be seeking an early date for Committee Stage.

Nobody on any side of the House condones welfare fraud, but does the Minister agree that the proper figure for such fraud is in the order of €40 million and not €500 million as some have suggested? It has been suggested to me that there may be some legal or constitutional difficulty with limiting the publication to cases of more than €5,000. Is that the case? If it is not possible to limit publication to cases valued at more than €5,000, will the Minister consider dropping the proposal? Let us face it, these people have already appeared in the newspapers; people know who they are because they are in local and national media when they are prosecuted for social welfare fraud. There is no obvious reason for listing them again on some sort of list.

I disagree with the Deputy. The reason for publishing their names is obvious, that is, to act as a deterrent for people who think it is okay to defraud the State. There are plenty of instances where people make mistakes and they will never see the inside of a court room. Deputy O'Dea is aware that we only take people to court in the first instance if the amount by which they have defrauded the State is in excess of €5,000. People who have been overpaid, who forgot to sign off for a couple of weeks and those who are guilty of no more than normal human error will never see the inside of a court room.

The Department has given consideration to the proposal and how it might best work. Concerns relating to the threshold and the legal soundness of same are behind the redrafting of the amendment. The impact of a threshold could be that convictions for some of the most serious offences prosecuted would not ever be published while at the same time, convictions for what might appear to be relatively lesser offences would be published. This is considered arbitrary, unfair and contrary to the objectives of the Department. Very serious offences which may never have any monetary value attached to or related to them because they were detected before a claim went to payment would not be published if a threshold is introduced. Employer prosecutions relating to obstruction or non-compliance with PRSI obligations, for example, would not ever have a monetary value. Therefore, we would not be able to publish details on such rogue employers and I believe that is wrong. We should be able to do so and the advice has come back to that effect.

Does the Minister agree that less than 10% of the money "lost" by the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection is a result of deliberate fraud?

I am sorry but I cannot hear the Deputy.

I take it the Minister agrees with my contention that less than 10% of the money lost by the Department of Employment Affairs and Social Protection relates to deliberate fraud. I think the figure is €40 million as opposed to several hundred million euro, which is lost as a result of errors on the part of the Department itself or of genuine mistakes on the part of individuals.

Individuals who are detected for social welfare fraud, who go to court and are prosecuted and sentenced generally have their details published in newspapers. Everybody in their community knows they have defrauded the social welfare system and if that is not a sufficient deterrent to people, I do not see how publication of their names on a list several months later will be a more effective deterrent. I do not see how it will be the straw that breaks the camel's back or the extra thing that stops people from defrauding the State.

During the Second Stage debate on the Bill, the Minister gave an assurance to the House that there would be no question of the list being available for other purposes or to other organisations. She said that appropriate measures would be taken to ensure that the list would not be more widely disseminated. What practical steps are being taken to honour that commitment?

I do not agree with the Deputy's 10% contention but that is not surprising. The Deputy spoke about €40 million as opposed to €400 million but if the figure was €4 million, that is €4 million too much.

It is my responsibility to determine how my Department will spend the spoils of the Summer economic statement that is being issued tomorrow and how to share the money equally between the people who need it the most in this country. A sum of €4 million is a lot of money but €40 million is an awful lot of money. If we can save €400 million by publishing peoples' details on lists-----

We cannot have people saying that fraud amounts to €500 million. We all know who said that.

-----which will act as a deterrent to those considering deliberately defrauding the State, through my Department, then that is something we should do.

There is a view out there that we are deliberately going after people but I do not subscribe to that. It is not in my nature. If there is a compassionate case to be made by people, then they need to be listened to but people who deliberately, willfully and knowingly defraud the State of €4 million, €40 million or €400 million should appear on every possible list. I do not agree with the Deputy's contention. Despite the fact that people are brought to court for fraud and are named and shamed in their own communities through local and national newspapers, there are still people who go ahead the following month or year and knowingly and willfully defraud the State.

Is the Minister suggesting that they will stop because there is a list?

We need to move on.

I am certainly not saying it is exhaustive but I am saying it is worth a try. We need to be strong and firm so that people know that if they are in need, my Department is here for them and will actively and willingly help. That does not mean, however, that we are soft and that people can take advantage and willfully and knowingly defraud the State of money that rightfully belongs to someone else.

Top
Share