Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 19 June 2018
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]
Amharc ar fhreagraAs 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.
I know that.
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.
