Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 11 Jun 2013

Vol. 806 No. 1

Social Welfare and Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2013: Committee Stage

SECTION 1

Amendments Nos. a1 and 15a form a composite proposal and may be discussed together.

I move amendment No. a1:

In page 5, line 19, after “8,” to insert “15,”.

Effective debt recovery is a key aspect of my Department's control policy. It creates a climate where people who have been overpaid know they have a responsibility to repay and that my Department will take appropriate steps to obtain recovery. The Comptroller and Auditor General has noted in recent audits of social welfare overpayments that the Department's legal capacity to recover overpayment is limited. The Department has signalled to the Comptroller and Auditor General its intention to review its overall approach to overpayment recovery and explore alternative options for recovery. The sums involved are significant and amount to approximately €350 million. I introduced measures in the Social Welfare Act 2012 in respect of the recovery of social welfare overpayments by way of weekly deductions from a person's ongoing social welfare entitlements. This provided for a deduction of an amount up to 15% of the weekly personal rate payable to a person on social welfare payment for the purpose of the recovery of an overpayment. These provisions came into effect at the end of January of this year and full figures about recovery from deductions for 2013 will not be available until the end of the year. However, early analysis indicates the new recovery provisions are increasing the amount recovered from deductions from ongoing payments. Recovery from deductions has increased by over 20% for the four months since the introduction of the measure, compared to 2012. The additional value is of the magnitude of €2.4 million. It is expected this will increase further as provisions are comprehensively applied through the remainder of the year.

The amendments I am proposing are aimed at further improving the Department's ability to recover overpayments by giving additional powers of recovery in the case of overpayments by way of a notice of attachment to be put in place.

The new arrangements contained in amendment No. 15a will allow for deductions from an overpaid person's earnings of up to 15% of his or her net weekly wages. The amendment also provides for money held by the overpaid person in a financial institution to be attached for the purpose of offsetting the overpayment. This measure will be used in circumstances where a person has been actively engaged with by the Department but still refuses to co-operate in the repayment of the debt and where there is evidence of an ability to repay. In addition, a final demand must have issued to the person concerned and there must be no other or alternative recovery options available. The only other option available to the Department in these circumstances is civil court proceedings. This provision will be used as a more efficient and cost effective alternative to civil legal proceedings. Other jurisdictions have formalised systems of overpayment recovery by way of deductions from earnings. Most recently, in the United Kingdom the Welfare Reform Act allows the Department for Work and Pensions to recover overpaid benefits by way of deductions from an individual's earnings with effect from April 2013.

Amendment No. a1 provides that the new overpayment recovery arrangements will come into force by way of a commencement order. The order will be made shortly after the enactment of the Bill and as soon as the necessary administrative arrangements have been made.

Everybody agrees that it is desirable to recover social welfare overpayments. However, we also realise that the vast majority of overpayments made by the Department of Social Protection are as a result of honest mistakes made by the claimants and sometimes by the Department. Fraud accounts for a very small part of it. I have the percentages, but I do not have them to hand.

The Minister has said that since the provisions of the Social Welfare Act came into force the pace of recovering overpayments has increased. That might simply be due to the fact that the Department is collecting a higher percentage than it did hitherto. Generally, the amounts recovered hitherto were at a very low rate of €1 or €2 per week. Does the Minister have statistics for the average percentage being recovered at present? In other words, what percentage figure does the Department apply? Is it up to the full 15% or less? It might seem reasonable, but for somebody on the personal rate of jobseeker's allowance of €188 per week a deduction of 15% would amount to a great deal, particularly when the overpayment has occurred as a result of an honest mistake. Will the Minister give an indication as to the rate at which overpayments are being collected since the legislation came into force?

It is bizarre that such a huge change is being introduced to social welfare legislation at the last minute. There was no indication of this when we dealt with the issue of overpayments not long ago in the context of changing the legislation to allow for a greater amount of overpayments to be recovered from those still in receipt of social welfare payments. It is odd that this amendment is being introduced at this late stage and it is a substantial change. We have very little information and I thank the Department's officials for the little that is available. It is no more than what the Minister has stated. We do not have facts and figures and there is a range of questions that must be answered.

The corollary of this is that if one was in receipt of a social welfare payment which was underpaid for a period of four years and one goes back to work, can one apply to the Department for the money owed? In the case of persons who are in employment and paying tax, if a person is overtaxed, there is a limit to the number of years in which the person can claim tax back. The time period has been reduced over a number of years and I believe it is now down to four or five. It is limited. Is there a limit in this regard? Will it be open to people in the social welfare section to trawl back a number of years? They do this anyway in respect of persons in receipt of social welfare payments. However, in the past, when somebody finished with the social welfare system, it was a case of good luck to them and so be it from the social welfare inspector's point of view if the Department had missed out. It had made the mistake and it was put down to bad practice on its part. However, take the example of there being an overpayment for a period of ten years which would not be totally uncommon and the Department does not discover this until the person concerned has started in the workplace. If it is discovered that the person has been overpaid by €10 or €15, that would be a substantial sum of money. Yes, it would be a loss to the taxpayer, but it should have been discovered while reviews were being carried out. If it is discovered eventually, it could frighten the life out of somebody to be faced with a bill of €10,000 or €15,000 after leaving the social welfare system and starting work.

I can offer an example. It is not from the social welfare system but from Dublin City Council's rent section. Recently the Ombudsman found in favour of Dublin City Council's rent section. For a period of years one of Dublin City Council's local offices was not assessing applications properly. A total of 700 files were found to have underestimated the amount of rent people should have paid, or the 700 files were wrong. A substantial number of people received bills from Dublin City Council seeking the payment of arrears that amounted to up to €10,000. In some cases, it nearly caused a divorce, with partners falling out because one could say, "I gave you instructions to pay the rent; why have you not paid it?" It had other consequences in other cases. The tenants concerned could not have maintenance works carried out on their houses, could not buy the house from the council and could not transfer. That is not the case in this instance, but my point is that these are mistakes made by the system. That occurred between 2007 and 2010 and it was only discovered late in 2011. If the system, despite its apparatus, rules and ability to review, fails to discover an overpayment over a period, there must be some mechanism whereby it is written off. I tabled an amendment containing the same proposal I made previously about an amnesty, but it was ruled out of order. There must be some cut-off date or mechanism, whereby the Department would not trawl back 20 years to find the tuppence ha'penny the person owed and multiply that figure by an interest amount and whatever else.

There is another aspect. If a person moves out of a Dublin City Council property and into his or her own property, he or she is supposed to clear the rent. If he or she does not do so, the council can pursue him or her through the courts. It also means the person cannot go back on the housing list until he or she clears the debt or finds some mechanism for doing so. That might have been a better approach than what the Minister is proposing with regard to a notice of attachment to somebody's wages, especially in the current climate.

The Minister stated that she takes into account people’s wages and ability to pay. We were told there was no facility to gauge ability to pay in respect of the property tax but there is now provision for it in the social welfare legislation. The attachment notice provision is wrong. We should consider the circumstances of those who fall on hard times for a second time and end up on jobseeker's allowance, or citizens who, on reaching pension age, return to the social welfare system. The key is indicating in advance that moneys are owed, thus affording people a repayment opportunity so that the Department will not eat into a citizen's pension unknown to him or her.
I am concerned that we do not have all the answers here. The legislation arrived very late so I did not have enough time to peruse it or consult experts in the field, such as MABS, whose expertise was acknowledged by the Minister. I would like to know the view of MABS. It is dealing with some of the characters about whom the Minister is talking, namely, people who have been on social welfare and who proceed to work of some kind. Immediately on starting work, bills are slapped on them, despite the concept of making work pay. In the event of somebody else's mistake, they will suffer. In the vast majority, or 60%, of cases, overpayments are attributable to clerical error. In most cases, the error is not by the recipient. The recipient must suffer the consequences of somebody else's mistake, which affects his income.
If somebody knowingly seeks to defraud the system, he should be charged. That is the mechanism by which to recover the money. In each instance of fraud, the State should apply to the courts for full recovery not only of the moneys in question but also of the cost of taking the case. There might be occasions on which full recovery, if offered prior to going to court, would save the State and the individual money. This could be taken into account. Identity theft and the making of multiple applications in different names for social welfare benefits constitute fraud. There are other occasions on which a person may knowingly submit incorrect information to make a claim. If one knowingly leaves out a considerable asset, it is fraud. In most cases, however, those who are in receipt of an overpayment discover the mistake. The Minister has already changed the social welfare code to address the limiting of the amount that may be recovered weekly. The amount recoverable is now up to €27 from the full jobseeker's allowance, a substantial amount in this climate. Are there figures demonstrating the number of social welfare recipients who have had the maximum sum, €27, recovered on a weekly basis? It was indicated that the maximum does not always apply.

I thank both Deputies for their comments. We actually need a reality check in regard to the problem of fraud, mistake and error, as it is described. The figures I have, from the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, are for 2011. Those for 2012 are still being examined by the office. In 2011, there were more than 63,000 overpayments, amounting to €92.4 million. Given the total social welfare expenditure for 2011, amounting to €20.7 billion, €92.4 million is a very small sum. The overwhelming majority of people in receipt of social welfare or pensions are utterly honest. They get what they are entitled to get, no more or less. The Deputies should note, however, that €92.4 million in one year is a significant amount. If fraud, error or overpayment occurs, we want to be in a position to recover the money in question in a structured way as quickly as possible. A message goes out to people that if they have received overpayments they will be obliged by the State to repay the moneys over time, as is the case with other institutions. If as much as possible of the €92.4 million for 2011 is not recovered, it is people such as pensioners who will suffer, because their legitimate entitlements will be put under the squeeze.

Overpayment is broken down into three categories: fraud, non-fraud and recoveries from the estates of persons who, it is discovered, have significantly more bank accounts or other types of asset than those disclosed on the making of the social welfare application. I refer to applications by individuals at the time of probate, for example. Fraud cases arise mainly on foot of false declarations by customers concerning their employment. Somebody who is actually working may seek a jobseeker's allowance, for example. Evidence of this may be obtained by investigation or, as is increasingly the case, through a tip-off to the Department. People are worried about social welfare money going astray. Non-fraud cases are primarily due to customer error, third-party error or departmental error. Cases arise in which undisclosed means of customers come to light after their deaths when their estates are being sorted out. In 2011, suspected fraud accounted for an estimated €35 million of the €92.4 million. Deputies may be a little surprised by this. Fraud featured in 38% of the cases, concerning 20,535 people. Let me refer to customer third-party error, which is sometimes a rather polite term. It may materialise on discussion with officers that the partner of an individual has returned only a week or two before that discussion. We would not have the time or resources to engage in litigation in every case. In the circumstances I describe, an individual may say he or she has a partner again and reflect this in the application for social welfare.

The third-party error amounts to €40.5 million, or 44% of the €92 million and comprises 36,000 cases. Deputy O'Dea should note that departmental error accounts for a very small amount, €5.5 million or 6%, and amounts to about 6,000 cases. Estate issues which arise, largely after somebody has died and his or her estate is being settled, account for about €11.5 million or 12% of the total, some 371 cases.

The total is about 63,000 people or customers of the Department and the estimated loss to the Department is about €92 million. In regard to fraud, on the part of officials at times there may be a lot of suspicion that there was a failure to accurately report the current status to social welfare. We would not have the capacity to go into the history of that in great detail and it might not be worthwhile to do so.

We have an obligation where these cases come to attention, to ensure the moneys, as far as possible, are recovered. In regard to people who are currently receiving social welfare payments I have set up a humane and considered way of assessing those with overpayments. They would, if they wished, have the right to appeal through the appeals system.

If people are currently in receipt of social welfare that can now be recovered at a maximum rate of 15%, or up to €28 a week, from the primary payment the individual receives. If he or she was in receipt of jobseeker's allowance the amount would be deducted from €188 per week. That is quite a considered way of doing it.

I do not have statistics on the exact amounts and recoveries. It is a process which is under way in social welfare offices right around the country. It only came into effect from January and we had to set up systems and so on. We are very anxious to take into account extenuating circumstances. Officials in the Department of Social Protection, by and large, have had an acknowledged reputation for doing that.

We then come to somebody who has received an overpayment. As I said, 38% are from fraud, 44% from customer error, just 6% from departmental error and 12% from issues arising from estates. The people involved are no longer in receipt of payments from social protection, therefore we cannot recover the money from them through the social welfare deduction process.

I ask for the support of the House for the Bill. It seeks the power to get an attachment order in regard to current earnings up to the same limits or in regard to bank accounts because sometimes money can be discovered. I gave Deputies details of people who were apparently reliant on social welfare income, but because they had other businesses had amassed significant bank savings in a number of cases published in the different reports on fraud.

It is appropriate that we should be able to do this in a structured way that is fair and takes into account individual circumstances, but also means that the message goes out that the Department is not a soft touch in regard to fraud or abuse of the social welfare system and will recover money in a structured way. The alternative available to us until this is introduced is to do nothing and not try to recover the money at all. In the good years it was quite possible to take that approach, but it is scandalous in regard to taxpayers who are paying tax and PRSI and is not acceptable to them.

Another option is to go down the route available without this amendment in regard to people no longer in receipt of social welfare payments, that is, to take civil proceedings through the courts. Deputies know very well that is expensive, lengthy and onerous. This will provide us with a mechanism which will allow us to recover money for taxpayers who are paying their PRSI and, in particular, the vast majority of people receiving an income from social welfare who want to see it spent on people who have the correct entitlement.

The total level of overpayments is 0.44% of departmental expenditure. There may be other areas we have to investigate. We are introducing a huge range of IT which will enable us to check identities. We have launched the special investigations unit and there is an updated and very active programme in regard to fraud detection. Members of the public are making contact at a very significant rate with the Department to indicate areas where they feel the system may be abused or that the Department may not know the full facts and that there are facts it ought to be aware of. The amendment is measured and will help to recover significant amounts of money for the Department as we develop this system.

I will be very conscious of what Deputies said. Deputy Ó Snodaigh referred to the rent system in Dublin City Council. I am aware that people who understate rent get an awful shock when, for different reasons, things finally catch up with them. The Department is conscious of that and wants to provide for it in a structured way.

I understand Deputy Ó Snodaigh said that if one underpaid rent to Dublin City Council a whole range of services and options suddenly closed off completely, which was very difficult for a family. We are simply saying that the singular payment of the principal person concerned will be subject to deductions of up to 15%. If a person is now working and no longer a direct customer of the Department we will have a similar arrangement of recovery at a rate of 15%.

I cannot understand what the Minister is saying about fraud. Nobody here objects to robust recovery measures in the case of fraud. The official statistics showed 32% of cases involved fraud, while the remaining 68% were not fraudulent. The Minister seems to be saying those figures are wrong and a lot of people designated as non-fraudulent are actually fraudulent. That is the gist of what she said.

I do not underestimate the value of €92 million, but we are talking about individuals. I note the Minister is not able to produce figures on how social welfare offices operate the new overpayment powers they got in the last legislation. Some of the evidence coming to me suggests they are being used quite harshly. As I said, we are talking about individuals to whom a figure of €92 million, €94 million or whatever means very little.

A deduction of €27 per week from a payment of €188, especially when the overpayment has arisen through no fault of an individual, is very harsh and not fair. If social welfare officers operate the system in that way - some of the anecdotal evidence I have heard is that they are doing so - that is patently not fair, balanced or just.

Like Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh, I had very little time to examine this amendment and have no idea why it was not part of the original legislation but was instead foisted on us at the last minute without any opportunity for consultation. In regard to the attachment order, if a person moves from social welfare to employment and is entitled to family income supplement, is it the position that the Department will take that supplemental payment where it is sufficient to cover any overpayment that is adjudged to have been made while the person was reliant on social welfare? It seems somewhat illogical that where a person is in receipt of a departmental payment by way of the family income supplement, the Department would at the same time issue an attachment order against the individual's wages. What is the situation in a case such as that?

I was interested to hear the data supplied by the Minister. The new figures would have been even more skewed for last year when one considers that 60,000 social welfare recipients had an overpayment of one week in respect of their fuel allowance in 2011, that overpayment being subsequently deducted. The tabloid media would describe those overpayments as fraud because that is how all such matters are reported. While some tabloid newspapers have been admirable in their reporting of the Minister's latest proposal and did not go after the cheap headlines, others continue to talk about dole cheats and so on.

The figure for suspected fraud is €35 million, and this is the sum the Department should be pursuing to the ends of the earth. The message must go out that people who engage in deliberate fraud will be penalised. In the case of overpayment, it is interesting that the figure of €11.5 million, while very substantial for any community organisation, for example, is not a huge amount in the larger scheme of things. The fact that many of these overpayments relate to individuals' estates suggests that they involve elderly people who were in receipt of a contributory or non-contributory State pension and in respect of whom it was subsequently discovered, after their death, that there was a cache of money, additional assets or whatever.

The main cohort at whom these provisions are aimed are those involved in third-party error, who account for 44%, or €40 million plus, of the total figure of €92 million. In many cases these people are not aware that they are receiving an overpayment, although some may understand that they are getting slightly more than others. I do not recall any campaign urging individuals who believe they may be in receipt of an overpayment to contact their social welfare offices and have the matter dealt with as quickly as possible. Most people in receipt of social welfare are dependent on every last cent they can get. Some are making payments to debt collectors, for instance, and many are raising children. Most of them will not, in the absence of some type of prodding, offer up the excess €5 they are receiving every week. When it comes to repayment, that might sound like a small sum to people who are on a decent wage, but it adds up to €250 in a year, €500 after two years and so on. That level of overpayment amounts to a substantial sum for people on social welfare to repay. If a person moves off the dole and into minimum-wage employment, earning €350 or €400 per week, a 15% attachment order to recover an overpayment will have a significant impact on his or her disposable income.

That is our concern in regard to this amendment. It will be passed because the Government has its majority, but it is disappointing that we were not given sufficient time to examine it. I urge the Minister and her officials to ensure that the maximum is not pursued on every occasion, as per the default position of those involved in recovering moneys for the State. There is provision in the legislation for some leeway in this regard. I mentioned Dublin City Council because I am most familiar with it, but all local authorities will present a tenant in arrears, for example, with a proposal to repay €50 per week. The individual concerned must then embark on a process of negotiation to reduce the repayment to a more manageable figure. It should not be the default position to recover 15% in all instances. There must be an awareness of the difficulties involved, unless the person concerned is fortunate enough to be earning very good wages and can afford the 15% payment.

The Minister indicated that the level of departmental error is around 6%. It is telling that even the Department, with all of its computer systems and qualified personnel, can make mistakes at that level. I and other Deputies, including most likely the Minister herself over the years, have pointed out that there are many people who have difficulty filling out forms. I am aware that departmental officials generally give the benefit of the doubt in such cases, accepting that the person concerned did not understand what information was being sought. Nevertheless, it is vital that the forms be simplified. Most of the information is already on the departmental system. In time, when the computers in various Departments can talk to each other, the opportunity for both clerical mistakes and applicant errors will be reduced. That work will produce savings. In fact, if there is any saving from the provisions in this amendment, it might be re-invested to ensure the systems are properly functional. People are being penalised not only in cases in which they made a genuine mistake themselves but also in cases in which somebody else made a mistake. Between departmental error and third-party error, we are talking about some €50 million, which is not a small sum and could be better used for the benefit of a range of recipients. We should always be mindful of those in our society who might be described as functionally illiterate. It is estimated that 20% to 25% of Irish people experience major difficulty in filling out forms and completing other bureaucratic requirements. It is a scary figure for a modern society.

We are not arguing that nothing should be done. There has always been the option, as the Minister mentioned, to take civil proceedings, and that threat alone would probably have forced some people to cough up where they were in a position to do so.

Maybe the Department's failing over the years was that it did not take such proceedings, with all the publicity, thus sending out the message that where people received major overpayments over a substantial period of time the money would be recovered, especially if the person was in work or had some other source of wealth. I am concerned that, more and more, we are creating additional powers to interfere with people's personal finances. In the case of the property tax, for example, we argued about the additional powers given to the Revenue Commissioners. That is mirrored here in the granting of full access to information about people's incomes and assets. That is not a bad thing if one is talking about assets, but it is if it means continuously monitoring income other than that covered by the normal tax system in which one pays one's PRSI. Only in the event of abuse of that system should the State be involved in trying to recover money. This is not abuse of the normal tax system. It is not abuse at all in most cases, because it is not fraud. It is error, whether on the part of the customer or the Department, and it should not be treated as tax or social welfare fraud. It just seems that the two are viewed as the same thing.

How many cases are taken each year when fraud is suspected? Is there a big campaign, apart from encouraging people to let the Department know if others are fraudulently claiming? How much time and effort is put into prosecuting those involved in that fraud and how much is put into ensuring the recovery of the money? In this case we are dealing only with those who have moved on. Most of the €35 million taken through fraud or third-party error can be recovered because the people involved are still receiving social welfare, especially in this day and age when the number of people moving from dependence on social welfare to work is reduced. The amount that could be recovered is not the €92.4 million that was mentioned at the outset but is probably a very small fraction of that.

There are people who receive only child benefit, and I presume payment is excluded in such cases. I know that in the recovery process, if one is on social welfare, that is the principal payment and the 15% can be taken from it. In the case of child benefit, however, people on wages are affected, so it is slightly different. If one is on wages and receives child benefit, will the amount to be recovered come out of the child benefit? Does this apply if one is not in receipt of any payment? For example, if one is married and one's partner is earning, does this apply to recovery from the partner? There are people who do not earn an income and whose children have grown up but live at home. Is that an option that is included, or is one of the effects of this that a partner in a couple could be pursued for past overpayments by the other partner?

I welcome the Minister's comment that this is a tiny fraction of the overall budget and that the majority of those who claim social welfare do so honestly and live very frugally if they are wholly dependent on social welfare. It is important to put it in that context, and it was only right and proper that the Minister did so.

One of my concerns is that once something has been written down and approved it becomes a strict rule, and flexibility in a situation where money is tight becomes much more difficult. I have no difficulty whatsoever with taking people engaged in fraud out of the system, because not only are they taking something that does not belong to them, but they are causing these headlines in the tabloid newspapers in some cases. I fully accept the point made by others that there is a difference between fraud and error. We have a very complex system of social protection with many different payments, so that often it is not easy for people to understand the process. As some people have said, the simplification of forms would go some way towards eliminating some of the errors.

I am concerned that the provision will be strictly and harshly applied, because the way people are being handled now in situations in which there may have been a discretionary payment would not have happened five or six years ago. It is difficult to describe without quoting individual cases, which I can give the Minister over the next few days if need be. In some situations a person who was working may have received a discretionary payment where his or her income increased and an overpayment occurred innocently. In other situations small amounts paid over a long period can make up a sizeable bill for somebody on a small income. I too reiterate the call for a humane approach to error, as opposed to deliberate fraud.

I would have liked to hear what the Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, and others would have said about a more considered approach to this problem. It is really regrettable that we are not enriching the legislation by availing of the knowledge of people who are at the coalface and who could draw attention to things that might be problems but could be eliminated by tweaking this proposal. It is unsatisfactory to deal with this in such a rushed way.

I advised the Deputies that we were not able to introduce the amendment because we were awaiting clearance from the Office of the Attorney General, where there are great pressures of work. These are complex amendments and difficult to get right. Before I became Minister, an overpayment could have been recovered for the princely sum of €2 per week. There has to be balance in our discussion. People who work and those who are retired but were in work have contributed tax and PRSI. I have an obligation to them and to the credibility of the social welfare system and contract.

I am glad that Deputy Catherine Murphy has acknowledged that the number of people who receive overpayments, some 63,000 in 2011, is a small fraction of the total number in receipt of social welfare payments, the overwhelming majority of whom are very honest. However, there are some who are not dealing honestly with the social welfare system. To be honest, this is a scandal. While the economy is doing better, money is still tight. We must be able to recover the moneys involved in a reasonable and measured way which is what this provision will put into operation. I have also had the opportunity to talk to staff dealing with this issue in the various offices. Some of those discovered abusing the social welfare system will put up their hands and agree to pay back so much a week. However, there are those who give two fingers to the rest of the working population who are paying their taxes and PRSI, saying they will only pay back €2 a week. That is not a reasonable stance to take. We are now putting into effect a modern recovery system which will do it carefully and cautiously at a maximum of 15% of the principal payment.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh asked about recovering from those in receipt of a single payment such as in the case of a couple claiming child benefit by stating they had seven children when they had only three. Yes, we can. Should we recover it? If it is their only payment from the Department of Social Protection, we should claim it back at a measured amount, amounting to the same percentage and taking into account the circumstances of the case.

Deputies have stated correctly that many persons who deal with the social welfare system might not be great at reading and writing. My Department spends €47 million a year on Citizens Information centres and the MABS, the Money Advice and Budgeting Service, precisely to help people to obtain information on their entitlements. Since I became Minister, we have been working with the National Adult Literacy Agency, NALA, and the Plain English campaign to have social welfare benefits expressed in language that, while it has to have reference to the law, is understandable to as many people as possible. It must also be borne in mind that significant numbers of social welfare claimants were not born in Ireland; therefore, their grasp of English and their proficiency in the language may be less than that of Irish or other English-speaking claimants. Citizens Information centres run significant information campaigns and provide many leaflets on social welfare entitlements. We also have an advocacy service which I launched shortly after I became Minister to assist people with disabilities, for example, to receive their full social welfare entitlements. There is much emphasis on care in social welfare offices to assist people with their entitlements. The other side is that if somebody has received an overpayment, the Department is actually bound to seek its recovery on a reasonable and phased basis.

By the end of 2012 there were 675 cases in the courts system, which includes those with the Chief State Solicitor’s office and local State solicitors. I make no apology for this. By and large, the cases that end up involved in court proceedings are very serious and involve large amounts of money. If such cases go undetected and unprosecuted, it saps confidence in the social contract for those paying their taxes for the social welfare system who want to see retirees, for example, receive a decent social welfare pension. It must be remembered that social welfare rates are at the higher end of the spectrum than those in most European countries. In spite of all our economic difficulties, we have managed to keep the core weekly payments intact.

The amendment is appropriate and brings the recovery of overpayments into a modern system. The technology available in the Department of Social Protection is being updated. We have cleared the backlog of family income supplement applications and revised extensively the arrangements for domiciliary care allowance, much of which was drawn from debates in the House with Members opposite and suggestions from various organisations involved. However, we do have a persistent problem with social welfare fraud and abuse. We need to make the recoveries which is what the amendment is about. I recommend it to the House.

Are the attachment orders only valid in the State? Can they be pursued in other European states? The Minister has stated there are 675 cases before the courts.

There are 675 cases in process.

The Minister, however, stated of the 63,000 claimants in receipt of overpayment, fraud is suspected in 38% of cases. That would put the figure involved in fraud near 20,000. Considering that only 675 cases are in the courts system, it seems a significant amount of fraud cases are not actually prosecuted. Are agreements made to settle these cases before they get to court?

I will get information for the Deputy on a claimant who has moved abroad. It depends on whether it is possible to identify his or her earnings.

During 2012, 161 of the cases were referred to the Chief State Solicitor’s office for criminal prosecution. Obviously, these are the ones at the more serious end of the spectrum. In last year’s social welfare Bill I gave powers to social welfare inspectors to question people at ports and airports in cases where they were suspected of repeatedly coming in and out of the country to make claims or of Irish people who had moved abroad and were coming back to make claims. Several such cases have been prosecuted, but, again, this is at the serious end of the scale.

Up to 84 cases were referred to An Garda Síochána and are under consideration for prosecution. We run many joint investigations with the Garda, the Revenue Commissioners, the Customs service and other agencies such as the Taxi Regulator. There are many complaints made by people working legitimately in the taxi industry that they are being undercut by unregistered moonlighting taxi drivers who are drawing social welfare payments.

We are rolling out the personal services card, with up to 250,000 issued so far. We require people to co-operate with this process which is further provided for in this legislation.

On invitation to have a photograph taken, it is interesting that some people decide they cannot have it taken there and then. There is a problem in terms of multiple identities being claimed by a few individuals.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
Barr
Roinn