Department of Social Protection not a 'soft touch' for fraud or abuse, Minister warns

The Dáil has given the Minister for Social Protection Joan Burton the power to take funds directly from the bank accounts of people who have received social welfare overpayments, through attachment orders.

The Social Welfare and Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill will also allow the Minister to take up to 15 per cent of their earnings through attachment orders, for either overpayments or fraud.

The Bill was passed just after midnight by 76 votes to 39 with the attendance of four Cabinet Ministers. Fianna Fáil and independents voted against the legislation.

Ms Burton pointed out that the State is currently owed €350 million because of overpayments.

The new powers would be used for individuals who had an ability to repay but who refused all demands for such payments.

She had told TDs that changes in the first Social Welfare Bill introduced after the Budget to give her department powers to recoup overpayments had resulted in a 20 per cent increase in repayments to the State.

There had been a €2.4 million increase in repayments to her department since the end of January, when the provisions came into effect.

It gave the Minister power to take up to 15 per cent from a recipient’s weekly social welfare payment. She sought the increased powers last night to deal with those who refused all demands for repayment.

Ms Burton was speaking during the committee stage of the Social Welfare and Pensions (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. This is the second social welfare Bill, introduced to give effect to provisions in the Budget.

Ms Burton said the measure to recoup overpayment would only be used where there were no alternative recovery options available.

“This provision will be used as a more efficient and cost effective alternative to civil legal proceedings.”

Fianna Fáil social protection spokesman Willie O’Dea said the vast majority of overpayments were the result of an honest mistake by the recipient or even by the department.

Seeking repayment “may seem reasonable, but for somebody on the personal rate of jobseeker’s allowance of €188 per week a deduction of 15 per cent would amount to a great deal, particularly when the overpayment has occurred as a result of an honest mistake”.

Sinn Féin social protection spokesman Aengus Ó Snodaigh hit out at the provision. He said “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”.

Ms Burton acknowledged “the overwhelming majority of people in receipt of social welfare or pensions are utterly honest.” But she said in 2011 some 63,000 overpayments were made totalling €92.4 million and that was a “significant amount”.

And defending the measure Ms Burton said she wanted the message to go out “that the department is not a soft touch” for fraud or abuse of the social welfare system.

During the debate on other provisions Ms Burton pointed out that social welfare appeals from recipients whose payments were reduced or ended more than doubled since 2009.

In 2009 there were 15,000 appeals to the department but by 2012 it had risen to 35,484. This represented a 136 per cent increase in appeals, she said.

Much of the increase in appeals was due to the introduction of a time limit of invalidity payments, from an indefinite period to two years. As a consequence many recipients sought a different social welfare payment, significantly increasing the number of appeals.

She said that in 2012 some 51,000 people received invalidity payments at a total cost of €603 million. She said the department received some 220 new invalidity claims each week as a consequence of the time limit. Waiting times had been reduced significantly for oral hearings of appeals, down by more than four months from 52.5 weeks to 36.5 weeks.

During the debate Mr Ó Snodaigh questioned why the Bill had to be dealt with in such a rush. He said a further two weeks to tease out the issues in the legislation would not have made much difference to its implementation but would have made it a better piece of legislation.