Joe Walsh
Question:1 Mr. J. Walsh asked the Minister for Social Welfare the steps, if any, he is taking to eliminate social welfare fraud. [13157/96]
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Fraud.
Liam Fitzgerald
Question:28 Mr. L. Fitzgerald asked the Minister for Social Welfare the main steps, if any, he has taken since taking office to improve the detection of social welfare fraud; the current plans, if any, he has to deal with this matter; and if he will make a statement on the abuse of the social welfare system. [12934/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 and 28 together.
The vast majority of social welfare claimants are genuine and receive only the payments to which they are entitled. However, my Department has a comprehensive control programme which includes checks and reviews carried out on a regular and targeted basis to ensure that social welfare payments are only received by those who are entitled to them and that employers and the selfemployed are fulfilling their PRSI obligations.
In recent years the reorganisation of my Department's structures and ongoing technological developments have combined to facilitate a more coordinated, focused and effective approach to control.
There are over 500 staff working on fraud and abuse control activities, including specific investigation units which work at local, regional and national level within the Department. These units, one of which works in conjunction with Revenue staff, carry out inspections of employers in relation to their PRSI obligations, investigate cases of concurrent working and claiming of social welfare payments, review customers' means for assistance payments and monitor their ongoing entitlements to social welfare payments. In 1995 some 243,000 claim reviews and 8,000 employer inspections were carried out, resulting in savings of £124.5 million to the taxpayer.
Since taking office I have initiated a fundamental re-appraisal of control procedures in the context of the strategic management initiative. The objective of this review is to ensure that the Department's resources are deployed in the most cost-effective manner to maximise returns in terms of eliminating incorrect payments and reducing fraud and abuse. Arising out of this review the current control approach is aimed at having systems and procedures in place that prevent and minimise the risk of incorrect payments, fraud and abuse; detecting incorrect payments, fraud and abuse of schemes at the earliest possible stage, and detecting unpaid PRSI contributions by employers and the self-employed; and ensuring that the public are aware of the risks and penalties for defrauding the social welfare system and dealing decisively with cases of fraud and abuse detected.
In addition, a new computerised system, known as the integrated short-term schemes system, has been implemented in local offices. This system has enabled a greater focus on control at claim registration, particularly with regard to establishing the identity of claimants and validating increases claimed for dependants. This system will also facilitate the computerisation of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme for the first time.
As part of the development of this system a major review of data held on both the central records and short-term schemes databases was undertaken. This review has assisted in preventing incorrect payments and will ensure that up-to-date quality data will be used in deciding claims. In addition cross checks are carried out with other databases to highlight any irregularities.
I am committed to ensuring that social welfare payments are available to those who are entitled to them and are delivered in an effective and efficient way. I am also determined to ensure that abuse of the system is prevented and is dealt with effectively when detected.
Will the Minister state the total cost of social welfare fraud and abuse and unwarranted claims during 1995?
In terms of specific control activities in 1995, 8,000 employers were inspected and 242,000 claimants had their claims reviewed. A study of fraud and abuse of unemployment and disability payments was carried out on behalf of the Department in 1987. This study showed the level of abuse to be 2 per cent in the case of unemployment payments and 1 per cent for disability benefit payments. Savings from control activity in 1995 were £124.5 million, comprising £16 million in PAYE-PRSI arrears determined as a result of employer inspections and £108.5 million from scheme savings. The total savings for the period 1991-95 amount to approximately £500 million. I can give the Deputy a breakdown of this figure if he wishes.
I asked the Minister the level of fraud and abuse detected by the Department of Social Welfare during 1995.
I have indicated the extent to which the control systems have identified abuse and over-payments. It is estimated, on the basis of the survey carried out some years ago, that approximately 1-2 per cent of payments can be attributable to fraud.
For the third time, what was the level of fraud and abuse detected by the Department of Social Welfare during 1995?
I have answered that question, which seeks to establish to what extent I think the £124.5 million was a result of deliberate fraud. It is impossible to state categorically that X percentage of that amount which has been saved for the taxpayers arises from deliberate fraud. In many cases over-payments are made because people simply have not informed the Department of changes in their circumstances. In some cases failure to do this can result in a person not receiving his or her due entitlements. It would be inappropriate for me at this stage to say that a particular proportion of this amount can defin-itely be attributable to fraud. As I said, a survey carried out some years ago indicates the level of fraud at 1-2 per cent, depending on the scheme.
This is a classic case of not being able to get an answer to a straight question. I am not surprised the Ombudsman has referred to this matter. I will ask another question. How many cases involving fraud and abuse of the Department of Social Welfare were prosecuted during 1995?
I do not have that information with me but I can send it to the Deputy. That question was dealt with previously and, if I recall correctly, between ten to 15 cases went to court.
I call Question No. 2.
May I ask a final question?
We have expended almost half the time allocated for Priority Questions and have not yet completed one question. I will allow the Deputy a final question.
I am sorry to say that I have got no information to my questions. How many cases have been brought to the attention of the Department by the Garda Drugs Squad?
I do not have that information with me but I can send it to the Deputy if it is available to my Department.