Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 5 Nov 1991

Vol. 412 No. 1

Written Answers. - PRSI Abuse.

Eamon Gilmore

Question:

90 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Social Welfare if, in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Leitrim, he will outline (a) the amount of arrears of PRSI identified by the investigating officers of his Department and (b) the date the arrears were cleared.

Eamon Gilmore

Question:

91 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Social Welfare if a file in respect of the case of a person (details supplied) in County Leitrim was referred to the State Solicitor in County Leitrim or if the State Solicitor was contacted in respect of this matter.

Eamon Gilmore

Question:

92 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason, in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Leitrim the State Solicitor in County Leitrim was advised that summonses be prepared in respect of the case.

Eamon Gilmore

Question:

93 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Social Welfare if a file in respect of the case of a person (details supplied) in County Leitrim was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Eamon Gilmore

Question:

94 Mr. Gilmore asked the Minister for Social Welfare the reason in the case of a person (details supplied) in County Leitrim his Department never pursued the matter of false accounting.

Minister for Social Welfare (Dr. Woods)

I propose to take Questions Nos. 90 to 94 inclusive, together.

A number of other questions from the Deputy relating to this particular case have been transferred to the Minister for Finance as they concern tax matters appropriate to the Revenue Commissioners.

As part of an ongoing campaign to detect and deter abuses of the PRSI system, the employer concerned was visited by the joint investigation unit which my Department operate in conjunction with the Revenue Commissioners. Their investigation revealed that PRSI records were not up to date and arrears of PRSI were identified. In accordance with normal practice governing confidentiality, I am not at liberty to disclose the amount involved without the consent of the person concerned. I can, however, assure the Deputy that the amount involved is not in any way substantial when viewed in the context of employers PRSI liabilities generally.

Satisfactory arrangements for the clearance of the arrears have been made. The arrears are being collected by instalments with post-dated cheques being held in respect of all the outstanding balances. Accepting post-dated cheques is a normal practice. In this case they have been honoured as they became due. All the remaining post-dated cheques will have fallen due by July 1992.

In the normal course, consideration would have been given to instituting proceedings against such an employer. However, earlier this year I announced an amnesty against prosecution for such employers who co-operated with officers of my Department and who made arrangements to clear any PRSI arrears due. This amnesty, full details of which are given in my reply to Question No. 89, is part of a major campaign undertaken to visit up to 15,000 employers this year in an effort to stamp out abuses of the PRSI system. This compares with some 2,400 such surveys in 1990.

Under the terms of the amnesty, the employer concerned was given the opportunity, which he availed of, to put his PRSI affairs in order and to make arrangements to clear the arrears. If he had not done so, prosecution proceedings would have been initiated under social welfare legislation. However, the employer concerned did co-operate within the terms of the amnesty, the issue of proceedings did not arise and the file was not referred to the Chief State Solicitor's office nor to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

There is on-going informal contact between officials of my Department and local State solicitors throughout the country about possible offences and the type of evidence that would be needed in particular cases and on other technical and procedural issues. It is understood that informal consultations took place in this case. However, there would have been no question of proceedings being instituted or of a summons being prepared until a case has been passed formally to the Chief State Solicitor which, as I have explained, did not arise in this case because of the amnesty.

This case highlights the positive effects that the amnesty is having in the campaign to stamp out abuse of the PRSI system. The amnesty arrangements, however, are temporary and are due to finish at the end of November 1991. Employers who are abusing the PRSI system will continue to be vigorously pursued and, where appropriate, legal proceedings will be taken using the full provisions of the social welfare legislation.

Allegations were made by Deputy Gilmore in Dáil Éireann on 18 October 1991 that I had intervened in the case to prevent proceedings being instituted. I wish to categorically refute this allegation which is reprehensible and completely without foundation. No interference took place. Normal procedures and practices were followed in this case. It is not the practice in my Department for cases of this nature to be submitted to me to authorise prosecution nor was it done in this case. Decisions to initiate prosecution are taken by certain senior officials of my Department who act under specific statutory delegated authority to do so.

The allegations made by the Deputy also impugn the integrity of my officials and their actions. I wish to state categorically that in my view they acted properly at all stages in their handling this case. For my part I have followed a deliberate policy of not interfering in executive actions of my officials in the course of investigative work.