Vol. 365 No. 5
asked the Minister for Social Welfare if she is aware of public concern regarding the Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the Appropriation Accounts of 1983 and 1984 of the frauds within the social welfare system; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
21.
asked the Minister for Social Welfare the up-to-date position regarding alleged fraudulent claims for social welfare payments; and the special steps which will be taken to eliminate, as far as possible, this practice.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 7 and 21 together.
The various matters raised by the Comptroller and Auditor General in his reports on the Appropriation Accounts for 1983 and 1984 in relation to frauds within the social welfare system have been the subject of detailed examination by my Department. The measures necessary to deal with any shortcomings in the administration of schemes highlighted by these examinations which could give rise to fraud are being taken. Detailed information on these measures has been given to the Comptroller and Auditor General.
The matter of social welfare fraud has received much publicity in the media recently. Many of the allegations that have been made have been of a speculative nature and have tended to give a distorted view of the extent of the problem and could well be causing undue alarm among members of the public on the matter. The effect this media publicity may be having on the vast majority of social welfare claimants who are honest and upright and who are receiving no more than their legal entitlements is also a matter of concern.
That said, however, I would like to assure the House that both the Department and myself are at all times 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.
There are many control measures in operation and these have been developed and enhanced in recent times. The most significant developments in this regard have been made possible by the computerisation of the administration of much of the social welfare system which has enabled controls to be introduced which were not feasible under the old clerical system. A computerised system of recording and processing referrals for medical examination will be introduced shortly. This, together with the allocation of an additional five medical referees will enable the Department to operate more efficiently the referral system which is an essential element in the control of abuse of the disability benefit scheme.
In addition to controls built into the administrative system to prevent fraud, special measures are also in place to detect fraud which is not readily amenable to prevention through the administrative systems. The most common form of fraud in this regard involves persons working while receiving unemployment payments. In this connection I can say that my Department have obtained sanction for the recruitment of six additional officers for the special investigation unit which was set up specifically to counter this type of fraud. These officers are currently being recruited and will considerably strengthen the investigation unit.
The Government have recently approved the allocation of 64 additional staff to the Department for control work in the disability benefit area, a further indication of their determination to eliminate fraudulent claims and other abuses of the disability benefit schemes.
The Department, the Minister and myself are open to all advice and suggestions on how to deal more effectively with this problem. To this end the Minister hopes to have a meeting with representatives of employers and trade unions shortly to discuss the matter generally.
In conclusion, I feel that I should point out once again that thousands of claim 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 payments 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 welcome the Minister's statement but I wish to deal with the Appropriation Accounts——
A question please, Deputy.
There were two types of theft, one involving 742 disability cheques in which the total sum involved was approximately £15,000 and in February 1984 1,002 cheques were stolen involving £61,000. Is the Minister satisfied that procedures have been introduced to ensure that this will not happen again, as procedures introduced in 1976 seem to have failed?
As I stated in the reply, additional staff and the new system of computerisation will reduce the incidence of small fraud, although it would be impossible to guarantee elimination of all fraud because of the multiplicity of schemes. Increased efforts are being made to eliminate fraud and I am satisfied that the measures now being taken will improve the situation. I wish to emphasise that the vast majority of claimants are honest and that we are dealing only with a very small section of the community.
I accept the Minister's statement, but in March 1983 the computer showed up 1,056 duplicate claims. It was revised in May 1985 and it showed up 3,000 duplicate claims. What is the position regarding further revision of the computer in regard to duplicate claims?
The Deputy has raised a specific point and should put down a separate question to get more accurate information as I do not wish to speculate. The Deputy's original question was a general one and I can send the information to him by way of letter.
The computer has shown up a number of duplicate claims each time it has been revised and I merely want to know the present position regarding the computer.
I will check the matter and let the Deputy know.
I appreciate the Minister's reply because many wild allegations have been made in regard to social welfare fraud. The total number of cases involved in clearly intended fraud in 1985 amounted to 4,000 at a cost of £3 million. Therefore, are the Department satisfied that the figure is accurate or could the figure be as high as £150 million? Concern has been expressed because the Department have not confirmed or refuted the allegations made in various newspapers? A Member of this House, who is not present, stated that the amount could be closer to £150 million. Is this correct?
The Deputy has asked a specific question——
The questions are down——
The amount of over-pay-ments recorded for recovery in 1983 amounted to £3,522,000 of which £2,198,000 was attributed to fraud or suspected fraud by claimants; 87 individuals were prosecuted for irregularly attempting to obtain benefits and all but one were convicted.
Would the Minister confirm that during 1985 there were 187 prosecutions taken by his Department for fraud and that 169 convictions were obtained? As the Minister clearly said some time ago in answer to a question that 4,000 people were involved in fraud why were they not all prosecuted?
The abuses cover practically every scheme in the social welfare code, children's allowances, the free ESB scheme, disability benefit and so on. There was evidence of abuse in all those schemes but on a small scale.
I have a priority question on this topic which the Minister has brushed aside. I am not blaming the Chair for that, but the Minister has not answered very much. As a result of the amount of publicity given to allegations of fraud in regard to social welfare benefits, will the Minister confirm or deny the statements contained in an article in the Evening Herald on April 9? That article, written by a very reputable reporter, stated that fraud involved all forms of social welfare. One allegation in the article was to the effect that an itinerant woman obtained £14,000 in the form of children's allowances. It was alleged that she was claiming for 83 children.
The Minister cannot be expected to have the details of an individual case when he has been asked to reply to a general question.
I suggest that if the allegations in the article are true the Minister should be aware of them.
The question is a general one but the Deputy has referred to a specific case.
The allegations were made in last Wednesday's issue of the Evening Herald.
The Deputy did not ask a specific question.
My priority question asked the Minister for Social Welfare the up-to-date position regarding alleged fraudulent claims for social welfare payments and the special steps which will be taken to eliminate, as far as possible, the practice. In the course of that article a Member of the House, Deputy McGahon, stated that fraudulent claims amounted to £150 million. It was stated that an itinerant lady obtained £14,000 for children's allowance claims in respect of 83 children and that that fraud was detected when a garda in Bray found 13 children's allowance books in an itinerant's van. I am sure the Minister is so interested in the operation of the Department that he read the article.
I appreciate the Deputy's concern about this matter but his question was a general one and did not mention a specific case of a woman with 83 children.
Is the Minister in a position to express the amount of fraud as a proportion of the total amount paid out under social welfare schemes and the numbers involved in fraud as against the numbers claiming social welfare benefits so that we can get a clearer picture of what is involved?
The only figures I can give that I can stand over are those that quantify known overpayments, overpayments that have been uncovered by my Department. The figure for over-payments in 1984 was £3.8 million of which £2.4 million was attributable to fraud or attempted fraud by claimants. I do not deny that outside this some recipients may be defrauding the system and that there are elements of fraud of which we are not aware. However, in attempting to quantify the unknown abuses one is entering into the realm of speculation. One can pluck figures from the air that can have little or no basis in fact just to suit any purpose. I cannot see what is to be gained from such speculation beyond, perhaps, unduly alarming members of the public about the real extent of the problem which I consider some of the wilder speculation in this regard in recent times may have done.
Abuses of the social welfare system have been and always will be a matter of serious concern to my Department and the eradication of such abuses is and will continue to be a major priority. I should like to assure Deputies that everything possible is being done within existing resources to eradicate the abuses having regard to the need to ensure that the measures taken are cost-effective and do not cause undue delay in making payments to genuine cases. Accordingly, whatever the real extent of the problem, something nobody can reliably quantify, I am satisfied that the matter is being tackled by my Department as effectively as possible within existing resources.
I agree with the Minister that the highlighting of certain cases has caused a lot of worry and disquiet and there has been an upsurge of hysteria about what is alleged to have taken place. Will the Minister agree that it is the duty of the Department to deny the reports made in regard to the specific case referred to in the article in last Wednesday's Evening Herald and the figures that were thrown around, £150 million in fraudulent claims in one year? That article also stated that cheques from the Eastern Health Board were paid to a person who was not eligible. Will the Minister agree that his Department should deny those allegations rather than have the public worrying about them? He must remember that many genuine social welfare recipients feel the finger is being pointed at them in this regard.
The Deputy is making a speech instead of asking a question.
The Minister did a fair share of rambling without saying anything of substance.
The Minister was answering a question put to him by the Deputy. The Deputy should put a question to the Minister.
Since the Minister came into the House he has been fiddling with semantics.
The Deputy should ask a question.
Will the Minister agree that it is the duty of his Department to deny publicly the allegations made in newspaper reports? Will the Minister agree that an investigative unit of 30 officials, compared to an investigative unit of 100 officials in Northern Ireland is insufficient to investigate the various cases and uncover cases of fraud?
In view of the allegations that fraud is higher in Border areas, I should like to know if the Minister has any information on his file to prove that. If not, will the Minister agree to scale down the intensive investigation by the special investigators, particularly in the Donegal region where unemployment is highest in the country and where these investigations are currently amounting to a degree of harassment of social welfare recipients, with officers of the Minister's Department exceeding their authority in relation to the carrying out of these special tigations. Would the Minister not agree that the whole approach of these special investigators must be examined because the stage has now been reached when it is no longer investigation but harassment?
Deputy Conaghan has in fact replied to the last part of Deputy McCarthy's supplementary question when he asked for additional staff to monitor the whole social welfare system. As I have said many times before, it is a question of maintaining a balance. Here we have two Deputies on the opposite side of the House, one calling for more surveillance, stricter controls, more people recruited and the other requesting that the investigators be called off. That illustrates the type of two-way approach we encounter, with different views on the matter. I am not critical of that, I am merely pointing out the difficulties. We have recruited additional staff in this area but there is a limit to what they can do. If there are any instances of what Deputy Conaghan regards as unjust or unfair treatment of any individual, if he will bring them to our attention, we will have them investigated.
I am talking about the special investigators.
It is unfair to make general accusations along those lines. It is unfair to the social welfare staff who have an extremely difficult job to do and who are obviously under extreme pressure judging from the types of reports in the media referred to by Deputy McCarthy.
It is very difficult for them to do their job under that kind of pressure. When Deputies make allegations against social welfare officials I should like them to be specific so that we could have such cases examined and dealt with.
