Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 9 May 1991

Vol. 408 No. 2

Adjournment Debate. - Visits by Social Welfare Officer.

Mr. Durkan

Thank you, Sir, for affording me the opportunity to raise this matter in the House. I do not wish to delay the proceedings of the House but I felt it was necessary to bring to the Minister's attention a couple of matters relating thereto.

Question No. 204 was to ask the Minister for Social Welfare the reason a social welfare officer called to a person (details supplied) in County Meath during the course of his work on a social employment scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

Question No. 210 was to ask the Minister for Social Welfare the current position in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Kildare who is on a FAS course and recently had a visit from a social welfare investigator whose attitude seemed to indicate a threat to him; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The Minister's reply was:

The person concerned was in receipt of unemployment assistance continuously from 1987 until 15 November 1990 when he commenced a social employment scheme.

He was observed in a working situation by a social welfare officer on 2 November 1990 and, in the light of this, an investigation into his entitlement to unemployment assistance was undertaken. As part of this investigation it was necessary to interview the person concerned. A call was made to his home on 14 March 1991 and the social welfare officer was directed to the place where she was engaged on a social employment scheme project.

As a result of the investigation the person concerned has been disallowed unemployment assistance for the dates on which concurrent working and claiming has been established and an overpayment has been established.

I want to raise two points in relation to this question. I mean no criticism of the Minister and I realise fully that social welfare investigating officers have a very difficult job to do. We all recognise they have to do it and we support them fully.

However, there are ways and means of doing a job and on this occasion I felt the officer concerned was overly zealous in the performance and pursuit of his duty, particularly so when it came to light on foot of information being made available to the constitutent that for part of the period during which he was disallowed unemployment assistance it was discovered that he was on a Jobsearch course as directed by the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Labour. That being the case, I would have to conclude that either an error was made or, due to pressure of work perhaps, the individual concerned was not fully able to establish whether the person was working or not and may have made a mistake. However, the attitude to the constituent during the period when the investigation was taking place was not, to my mind, in the best interests of getting co-operation from the public or in the best interests of the Department concerned.

I have the height of respect for the Minister in the way he runs his Department and I know full well he himself would be displeased to think anything untoward happened. I do not wish to make any further allegations other than to say I felt the manner in which the constituent was approached was not in keeping with the guidelines and rules which are understood, more especially when it has transpired that for part of that period notice has already been served on the constituent to the effect that he now owes the Department a sum of money in respect of the period during which he was allegedly working. Obviously, if the individual concerned was on a Jobsearch course — I have submitted information to that effect to the Department — there is obviously an error, an overlapping. I have to conclude that if the investigating officer was wrong in respect of part of the period in which he alleged the individual was working he could very well be wrong about the entire affair. When it was suggested very strongly to the individual concerned that he was working the person concerned strenuously objected, and still objects, to the allegation. I have no reason to disbelieve him. It may well have appeared as if he were working at the time, but he was not. He has taken very seriously the allegation that has been made against him. I feel the Minister should take the matter up and have it resolved as amicably and as quickly as possible.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

An investigation carried out by an officer from the Special Investigation Unit into the entitlement of a man who had been in continuous receipt of unemployment assistance for nearly four years gave rise to this question. The Deputy has already received a full explanation in reply to these two parliamentary questions.

The investigation established that the person concerned was working for an employer on a number of dates on which he also drew unemployment assistance. It had been established that the person concerned was participating in deliveries to various locations. He had also accepted deliveries on behalf of the employer at company headquarters on several occasions over a considerable period. The social welfare officer visited the person concerned on 14 March 1991 to give him the opportunity to outline his version of events. The officer was aware that the person was by that time engaged on a FÁS scheme and consequently he decided to visit him after normal working hours.

When the officer called to his home between 7 and 7.30 in the evening he learned that he was still at work and was directed to his place of employment by a member of the household. When the officer made contact the person concerned chose not to co-operate and the officer withdrew. He reported the result of his investigations to a deciding officer in my Department for determination. The person's claim was subsequently disallowed for each of the dates for which there was evidence that he had worked. An overpayment was assessed for the amount paid to him on those dates. It was open to the person concerned to appeal against this decision and he has not done so to date.

In raising this case in the context of an Adjournment debate, I can only assume that the Deputy does not share my concern to combat this kind of possible abuse in social welfare. I note from what the Deputy has said that he feels——

Mr. Durkan

The person——

Dr. Woods

I tell the Deputy there is very clear evidence and that was made clear in the PQs. I cannot give him some of it because it is a matter for court. Fortunately at the moment there is an amnesty and people can avail of it if they make an arrangement to pay.

Mr. Durkan

For court?

Dr. Woods

I am afraid that is where it would end up.

Mr. Durkan

He was on a Jobsearch course.

Dr. Woods

He is on a social employment scheme.

Mr. Durkan

During the period it was alleged he was on the scheme he was on a Jobsearch course.

Dr. Woods

The period is a very long period. It is going to many months.

Mr. Durkan

Ten days.

Dr. Woods

I am afraid the Deputy does not have the facts. He is making a serious mistake.

An Ceann Comhairle

There is a strict time limit attached to these debates and interruptions are particularly unwelcome.

Dr. Woods

I have taken action over the past few years to counteract abuse in the social welfare system. Special units have been established to carry out investigations. These include the Special/Joint Investigation Unit and the External Control Unit. Both units operate on a nationwide basis and have been very successful.

The Special Investigation/Joint Inspection Unit, is made up of inspectors from my Department as well as inspectors of taxes. This unit combines the legislative powers and the resources of the two Departments in tackling abuses in social welfare and in tax evasion. There are 58 social welfare officials and 15 tax officials in this unit. It has been operating nationwide since January 1990. This unit's activities saved the taxpayer £8.5 million in 1990.

There are 23 officers in the External Control Unit. They are based in social welfare offices throughout the country and their primary objective is to ensure that those signing on the register are genuinely unemployed. They review claims to ensure compliance with the conditions governing eligibility for payment. The control operations of this unit since 1987 have achieved savings of almost £30 million.

Provision has also been made in this year's Social Welfare Act for a number of measures which are designed to eliminate abuse in the social welfare system. All the social partners are committed to reducing the effect of the black economy. These measures represent an important element in a major new crackdown on PRSI related abuse which is currently under way.

Tackling social welfare abuse serves two important functions. It maintains the confidence of those who pay social welfare and those who contribute directly by way of social insurance contributions or directly by way of taxes which are then used to finance social welfare payments. In addition, the resources available to provide social welfare services can be targeted towards those in genuine need.

In conclusion, I would like to assure the Deputy and other Members of the House that I am very serious about tackling abuse of the social welfare system. I am concerned that any work done in this area be proper and in accordance with the legislation. My record shows how serious I am. Under the legislation officers from my Department must carry out investigations. They must ask questions where there is doubt about a person's entitlement to a social welfare payment. These investigations can be difficult but officers are sensitive to the rights and dignity of the people being interviewed. I am satisfied from my examination of this case that this investigation was conducted in a proper manner. I am determined to ensure that abuses of social welfare are eliminated. I am serious about this campaign. I have to ask Deputy Durkan to accept and support what I am doing. I am sure nobody holds a brief for anybody who would defraud the taxpayer or abuse the system. I have noted the points made by the Deputy but I am limited in the information I can supply. If the amnesty is not availed of, the case will go to court. It is not spread over ten days but rather over a long period of deliveries.

Mr. Durkan

I have seen the report stating the days during which he was disallowed, five of which were during a period when he was on a Jobsearch course.

Dr. Woods

They are periods of deliveries of goods to——

Mr. Durkan

Alleged.

Dr. Woods

Why then did the individual not come forward when offered an opportunity to explain how his name happens to be on invoices and other documents? I cannot go into detail without causing more difficulty. Why was he not prepared to come forward and explain all that? It happened over months, not ten days.

Mr. Durkan

What about the Jobserach course?

Dr. Woods

I will look into that.