asked the Minister for Social Welfare the ways in which money is refunded to the State.
31.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Fraudulent Social Welfare Claims.
10.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if the Government have been made aware of the extent of the cross-Border social welfare fraud; if not the reason; and the measures they propose to take to stop this unacceptable drain on the Irish taxpayer.
33.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the information her Department have received in relation to a major fraud in social welfare payments in northern Border areas and nationally; the detailed reports her Department have obtained on these frauds; the action which has been taken to date to eliminate this fraud; and her Department's intentions in future to ensure that there is no further recurrence of these major irregularities.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 10, 31 and 33 together.
I wish to protest most vehemently against what has happened to me this afternoon.
Do not get cross——
I never get cross with anyone. I am one of the most reasonable Deputies in this House, but I feel things have worked out very badly for me today. I am not blaming the Chair or the Minister for that. I started with five priority questions: two were taken out before we even came to the House, one has already been taken and now I am losing another.
(Interruptions.)
This is a most unfair system and I feel I am being discriminated against.
This House in its wisdom made an order, and it can change that order, but it is not for the Chair to take the initiative. If you get the Fianna Fáil Whip and the Government Whip to put their heads together they might come up with a solution.
Will you put my views forward?
They read all these comments, believe it or not.
Will we be dealing with ordinary questions during priority time?
We have 15 minutes for one question——
Are there not enough supplementaries?
It may be that you will have to adjourn the House?
No, the order provides for that; it is far seeing and ultrawise. The Minister to answer Questions Nos. 10, 31 and 33 together.
I am sorry the Deputy has been disturbed by the necessity to take these questions together but unfortunately they deal with the same issue.
Not really. Mine are on a national basis——
I will try to satisfy everybody with this answer which is as full and as frank as I could make it.
The special investigation unit of my Department carry out investigations into cases of suspected fraudulent claiming of unemployment benefit and unemployment assistance. These cases are brought to notice by members of the public, by other officers of the Department and through the regular investigations carried out by the unit. In addition, special exercises are carried out from time to time where particular areas or categories of claimants are investigated in depth. The officers involved prepare submissions to their superior officers on the results of these exercises as part of normal administrative procedures.
A special exercise of the kind referred to was carried out between July 1983 and early 1984. This is in fact the exercise which was the subject of recent articles in a Sunday newspaper. Following this exercise, a submission was made by one of the social welfare officers to his supervisor on the results, in the course of which he speculated that if certain results were projected on a national basis, a sum of £25 million could be involved. However, my Department have not endorsed this figure.
The officer's submission stated that savings of nearly £400,000 had been achieved by the Dundalk exercise. The figure of £25 million was apparently arrived at by the officer projecting on a nationwide basis what he assumed to be happening all along the Border, based on his experience in the Dundalk area. However, the border poses special problems for fraud control and it would not be valid to apply the situation there to the whole country.
Furthermore, much of the fraud detected in this particular operation arose because of the unusual situation which existed at the time arising from the fact that a large number of Northern Ireland residents had been previously working on the Alcan project at Aughinish and subsequently claimed unemployment benefit at the Dundalk employment exchange on foot of that employment. In order to establish entitlement to benefit many of these claimants falsely declared that they were residing in the Dundalk area when in fact they were actually resident in the North. When these false declarations of residence were detected, their claims were disallowed.
This particular problem, which was peculiar to the situation at the time of the special exercise, led to a much higher number of claims being detected than would have been the case if it had been carried out at another time. Indeed, it was because of reports of such false declarations that the special exercise took place. That is the general position in regard to the Dundalk exercise.
I will now deal briefly with the other points raised in the questions. Firstly, in cases where a northern resident is found to be illegally claiming unemployment benefits he is prosecuted if apprehended. There is no extradition arrangement with the United Kingdom Government on such offences.
Secondly, on the question of refunding payments received fraudulently, the practice is that in all cases of fraud the amounts overpaid are demanded from the claimants.
Thirdly, on the question of whether the Government are aware of the extent of cross-Border fraud, I would refer the Deputy to my earlier remark that the exercise in question took place in 1983. The submission on the results of that exercise was only one of many submissions made from time to time by officers of the special investigation unit on the results of their operations as part of standard administrative procedures and would not in the normal way be submitted to the Government.
Finally, I would like to assure the House and the Deputies that both the Department and myself are at all times equally concerned at attempts to defraud the social welfare system and every effort is being made and will continue to be made to control abuses having regard to available resources. In this latter connection I can say that the Department have obtained sanction for the recruitment of six additional officers for anti-fraud work and this will be a considerable strengthening of the investigation unit.
In conclusion, I feel that I should point out that thousands of claims are received each week in my Department. I have no doubt that the majority of these are genuine, and that only a relatively small number of claimants attempt to defraud the system. In addressing the question of combating fraud, a balance has to be struck between, on the one hand, trying to prevent fraud and, on the other, making sure that the procedures are not such that they cause undue delay in making payment to genuine cases. The Department must ensure that proper regard is had to the needs and dignity of claimants generally and not make everyone suffer for the sins of the few.
I thank the Minister for her honesty in agreeing with the veracity of the Sunday Independent report, a copy of which I have here. Is she happy with a situation in which £25 million escaped to Northern Ireland because northern nationals have taken this money out of the pockets of Irish PAYE workers? Is she happy that the Government have refused to implement many of the recommendations in this report? Does she not agree that this practice must be stamped out immediately? Does she not agree that all claimants with Northern Ireland backgrounds should be asked for birth certificates, marriage certificates and children's birth certificates? What efforts are being made to recoup this £25 million?
I will endeavour to answer all those supplementaries. I thought I had explained that the figure of £25 million was a projection by that officer of what he assumed might be happening all along the Border and nationwide. If the particular case which was being investigated had a mirror image all along the Border and across the country, he would arrive at a figure of £25 million. I also mentioned that the Department, who receive many reports from special investigation units all over the country, take in the reports and decide whether to take on board that particular suggestion, or that they will accept that as being a factual case. In this case that projection of a specific investigation in relation to the whole country, arriving at a figure of £25 million, was not endorsed by the Department as being an actual fact. I am not disputing the veracity of the newspaper report but I think that newspaper report, which has concerned Deputy McGahon very much, in a certain style of presentation led the reader to believe that there was at this moment a £25 million fraud going on in Dundalk.
I have tried in my very full answer to deal with the actual realities of the situation. I do not really know how much fuller an explanation I can give than that. With regard to the final question the Deputy asked about the various measures that might be taken to deal with particular frauds, any reasonable measures that are put forward by the people working in these areas are very carefully considered by the Department because we are as concerned as the Deputy that this kind of fraud will not be allowed to proceed and will be dealt with quickly while, at the same time, ensuring that the needs of genuine claimants are met.
Is the Minister aware that in one specific inquiry a sum in the region of £400,000 was discovered to have been paid to claimants? I have the names here of the people and I have their actual addresses and accommodation addresses. What measures are being taken to recoup that sum of money to the Irish Exchequer?
I thought I had answered that in a fairly full answer in which I spoke about the measures that are taken, the special investigation unit and the increase in personnel in the special investigation unit. I assure the Deputy that all means possible are taken to recoup any outstanding money. Naturally, all means are taken because it is of great concern to all of us that the State should not be at the loss of any money from any fraudulent exercise.
With regard to the Minister's original reply and her subsequent answer to Deputy McGahon's supplementary question, she has conceded that the special report of that investigation unit in the Dundalk area was in her Department and that in that report they stated that £400,000 would be saved in the year in a very tiny specific area which just relates to a length of Border of approximately ten miles and, as a result of that figure, their projection of the overall national figure was £25 million. Have the Minister's Department totally discounted the fact that £25 million nationally might be correct in view of the fact that the £400,000 relates to such a very small area of the Border and that it is most likely that what has been happening in the immediate Dundalk area is happening right across the Border?
I will repeat what I said in my original reply. I said that much of the fraud detected in this particular operation arose because of the unusual situation which existed at the time arising from the fact that a large number of Northern Ireland residents had been previously working on the Alcan project at Aughinish and they subsequently claimed unemployment benefit at the Dundalk Employment Exchange on foot of that employment. That was a particular circumstance at that time in that area and, therefore, I find it perfectly reasonable that the Department would not automatically extend those circumstances to the whole Border and to the whole country simultaneously and arrive at a figure of £25 million. I can understand how the officer used a multiple of £400,000 and in an internal report to the Department stated a figure of £25 million. I must accept from my Department that they cannot see the logic of that figure of £25 million considering the circumstances of the investigation at the time.
I am glad the Minister has conceded that her Department have this report and that she intends to employ the six special members of the task force. Is she aware that in that report various other recommendations were made? The difficulty which appertained for the investigating units in the Dundalk and Border areas because of the huge number of members of subversive organisations there was stressed and the report actually stated that they were obliged to tread warily because of this. Is she aware that in relation not alone to the cross Border situation but also to dual signing impersonation the report stated that major criminal elements within the State were involved, their origins were in Dublin and they were spreading out from there? Has the Minister any information to confirm that in the report those criminal elements——
I am going to stop Deputy McCarthy because he can spill over into priority time and Deputy McGahon cannot.
I have spent half this day asking for leeway. I have been severely discriminated against. I am asking a number of supplementary questions. It is going very badly for me.
I do not think so. I have to be fair. I know Deputy McCarthy can go over into priority time. It is reasonable that I give some more time to Deputy McGahon who put down the question and also to Deputy Leonard, Deputy Daly and Deputy Dowling if I can. I will deal with the Deputy who put down the question.
On a point of information, can some of my supplementaries in relation to this question go over into priority time?
Yes.
Will the Minister say if she is aware of the criminal elements from the Dublin area who are involved in dual signing and impersonation and if any attempts are being made to investigate these cases and stop this?
I am calling Deputy McGahon and perhaps the Minister can answer both together.
Is the Minister aware from a recent survey in Dundalk that more than 600 cars with Northern Ireland registrations were checked outside the Dundalk welfare exchange? Does she accept that the situation is out of control or can she give an assurance that £25 million or any sum remotely connected with that figure will be lost to the Irish taxpayers?
In terms of the reports which my Department received from their officers in relation to particular areas I have to tell the Deputy that the submission made by that Dundalk officer was only one of many submissions which are made by investigating staff from time to time. The Department naturally look at all of the suggestions, all the recommendations and all the information sent in by staff to combat the abuses of the system and where those are considered valuable they are implemented. Some, but not all, of the recommendations made by the Dundalk officer in this instance were regarded as being of value. They have been taken into account by the Department, as they undertake their ongoing review of the procedures necessary for fraud investigation. I am sure Deputies, particularly Deputy McGahon will understand that when we talk about control measures and knowledge that is or is not available to the Department, it is important to be extremely circumspect because, if we are to be effective in dealing with these cases, it would hardly be useful to give an enormous amount of detail in this House. Therefore, all information such as that to which the Deputy has referred, should be sent to my Department. The Department should have it and they will then act on it, as they have done very successfully in the past. Even in the last year there have been a great many notable successes in the special investigation unit in combating abuse.
We are now dealing with priority questions.
We have waited so long.
I am very sorry, Deputy, but there is nothing I can do about it.
Who gave the information to the GIS who claimed that no such report existed?
Any further questions are confined to Deputy McCarthy. If Deputy McCarthy wants to pursue Question No. 33 he may.
On a point of order, a Cheann Comhairle, are we still dealing with Question No. 33 as a priority question?
Yes, and only Deputy McCarthy may deal with it.
Arising out of the various replies given by the Minister and her acknowledgment that the report from this unit in the Dundalk area exists and was in her Department, I want to pose a number of brief questions. First, that report clearly stated that investigating officers in the Border area around Dundalk were finding it very difficult to investigate the problems because of the huge number of members of subversive organisations in the area. They said they were obliged to tread warily. Have the Department any plans at present to provide extra facilities for their investigating units in that area in order to deal with those members of subversive organisations who are illegally claiming social welfare payments?
I can assure the Deputy that we are and would be very concerned about any reports we receive of any element which render it difficult or dangerous for our staff to carry out their work. In this instance I would have to refer to my previous remark, that in talking about measures which we are determined to take I would have to be circumspect about their nature. But I can assure the Deputy that we are concerned and are taking measures in that respect.
With regard to the same report might I ask the Minister — in relation to the criminal elements mentioned, who are alleged to be involved in dual signing and impersonation; the allegation that these criminal elements have their origins in Dublin and spreading out from there, and also the implication contained in the report that signing cards and P60 forms were being bought and sold and used in that type of abuse... have her Department taken any action with regard to curtailing the activities of these criminal elements in their fraudulent behaviour and in the buying and selling of signing cards and P60 forms?
I can assure the Deputy that any of the points raised with regard to the actual details of the way in which the fraud is being carried out have been brought to the attention of the Department and are being acted on in every possible case to ensure that there will be no recurrence of the fraud.
On a national basis is the Minister aware that fraudulent social welfare claims were being made by the itinerant community? The Minister will be well aware that in 1980 the Department decided that all unsettled itinerants would have to sign on a certain day between 11 o'clock and 12 noon, usually a Thursday. Is the Minister aware that while that decision did curtail the number of itinerants who were apparently claiming and receiving benefits at different employment exchanges, that regulation is no longer being rigidly enforced? Furthermore, is the Minister and her Department aware that the specified times for signing, between 11 o'clock and 12 noon, meant that many itinerants chose employment exchanges in close proximity when they were able to circumvent the regulations by dashing at break-neck speed from one to another between 11 and 12 noon? Has the Minister's Department any evidence to support that allegation?
I am sorry but I do not have answers to those detailed questions. I will have to communicate with the Deputy separately on that issue because I have not the specific information to hand.
I have the answer here, a Cheann Comhairle.
Will the Deputy make it available to the Minister?
With regard to unsettled itinerants, is the Minister's Department aware of or have they taken any steps to investigate the extent of such abuse or to remedy the possibility of many of them claiming unemployment assistance? It appears they are not too concerned about the amount of money they receive from such unemployment assistance except that they are interested in getting a qualification certificate which would further entitle them to visit community welfare officers in any part of the country and receive supplementary welfare payments in addition to their unemployment assistance.
As I said to the Deputy a moment ago, I do not have the information to hand to answer all those detailed questions concerning the travelling community. I should be glad if the Deputy would communicate with me separately or put down separate questions on that issue when I will be happy to help him.
In view of the report and the various other investigations that have taken place — which the Minister has conceded exist — have her Department any plans for the compilation of a central register of itinerants and vagrants, or people of no fixed abode?
That is certainly a separate question.
This is a specific issue which I am sure the Minister would examine very thoroughly. It is in relation to fraudulent claims by itinerants. There was a recommendation made that a central register of itinerants and vagrants, or people of no fixed abode, should be compiled and that they should sign at a fixed time each week. Have the Minister's Department any plans to implement that recommendation?
I would have to ask the Deputy to put down a separate question on the whole issue of the travelling community.
On a national basis, going into the broader field, apart from itinerants who may be involved in fradulent social welfare claims, have the Minister's Department, in view of the obvious huge extent of fraudulent claims on a national basis, particularly in Border areas, any plans to implement the recommendation that any applicant for a social welfare payment should have appended to their application form a passport photograph?
That is another suggestion on which I will seek the view of my Department. In answer to some of the other points the Deputy has made and his constant use of the word "conceded" in regard to things I am supposed to have said — I want to make it quite clear that I thought I had answered very fully in my original reply the whole question of the newspaper report. I want to make it quite clear what is the position regarding that report. There are, in fact, two newspaper reports. On Sunday, 16 February a reporter from RTE News requested a comment from the Government Information Services on the report referred to in the newspapers about the disclosure of cross-Border fraud regarding social welfare claims. On that Sunday morning a check was made quickly with my Department officials but not with me. I was in the Department only a couple of hours at that stage. RTE were informed that the £25 million dole fraud story was "wide speculation". In the time available the Department had been unable to trace a reference to the figure of £25 million being mentioned in any formal report. As I have said, the problem was that the style and presentation of the newspaper report led the reader to believe that we have at present an enormous cross-Border fiddle amounting to £25 million. It was pointed out to the RTE reporter that over two years ago an exercise on unsuspected abuses in the Dundalk area was carried out. It subsequently turned out that that is what the story was about.
In the days following the statement by the Government Information Services concerning the newspaper article several officers of the Department, whom it had not been possible to contact before the statement issued on Sunday, were contacted and a submission by one of the social welfare officers involved in the Dundalk exercise two years ago was traced. In the course of the submission to his supervisor the officer concerned speculated that, if certain results were projected across the whole Border and on a national basis, then a sum of £25 million could be involved. This figure was not endorsed by his supervisor in headquarters or by the Department, which regards it as highly speculative.
The Minister replied to a supplementary question which I had not arrived at. That is the reply by the Government Information Services on last Sunday week when Mr. Joseph Jennings, head of the Government Information Services, emphatically denied that such a report existed. I suggest that a major cover-up was taking place in her Department. She has a type of Watergate within her Department. I would like to know who is trying to protect whom? There was a basic denial of the existence of the report. Yet today she conceded that the report exists. The head of the Government Information Services told a blatant lie to RTE.
The Deputy will have to withdraw that remark.
I will withdraw the word "lie"; but the head of the Government Information Services, one of the national handlers, misled RTE and the people of this country about a report on fraudulent social welfare claims in general but particularly in Border areas.
The Deputy is now making a speech.
Could the Minister let me know why the Government Information Services denied the existence of the report of RTE? Could she also let me know why, in a written reply which I obtained yesterday, she informed me that it was estimated that there were 4,000 cases of fraud involving social welfare payments, with overpayments in the region of £3 million, in 1985. Yet she said there were only 187 prosecutions for social welfare fraudulent offences in 1984. Can I interpret from those figures that there was an increase from 187 cases of fraudulent social welfare claims in 1984 to 4,000 in 1985? Is that a fair assumption?
I am sorry that the Deputy is asking me questions which refer to questions asked yesterday. I will have to treat them as separate questions. On the question about the GIS I have, both in my original answer and in the remarks I made a few moments ago, dealt fully with the sequence of events there and I consider that the question has been answered as fully and as frankly as possible.
Could I ask that the questions which are now being given for written reply be withdrawn?
The Deputy can make that request in the General Office.
Do I have to do it before a specific time?
Before 4 o'clock.
I wish to raise on the Adjournment an issue which has come to my notice within the last half hour concerning radioactive material which has been discovered in seaweed and silt in the Lough Foyle area. This is of extreme importance to my constituency in view of the extensive salmon fishing undertaken there.
I will communicate with the Deputy.