Olwyn Enright
Question:57 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs his plans to alter the habitual residency condition as applied to the child benefit payment; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32582/07]
Priority Questions.
Social Welfare Code.
Child benefit may be paid in respect of every child under the age of 16 who is ordinarily resident in the State. Payment can be extended to the 19th birthday if the child is in education or incapable of self-support. The benefit is paid to the qualified person with whom the child resides and the qualified person must satisfy the habitual residence condition.
The requirement to be habitually resident in Ireland was introduced as a qualifying condition for certain social assistance schemes and child benefit with effect from 1 May 2004. It was introduced in the context of the Government's decision to open the Irish labour market to workers from the ten new EU member states, without the transitional limitations that were imposed at that time by most of the other member states. The effect of the condition is that a person whose habitual residence is elsewhere would not normally be entitled to social welfare assistance or child benefit payments on arrival in Ireland.
EU regulations provide that EEA nationals who are migrant workers, that is, those who are employed or self-employed in this country, or who are receiving the jobseeker's benefit since being in employment here, are entitled to payment of family benefit in respect of their families, including those who reside in another member state. Under these regulations, the family members are treated as if they are habitually resident in Ireland for the purpose of child benefit.
A survey was done by my Department on new child benefit claims decided between January and the end of August 2007, in which period a total of 28,542 claims was decided. Of these 3,430, or 12%, required particular examination of the habitual residence condition. Some 90% of these satisfied the condition and only 341, or 10%, were refused owing to its not being satisfied. In effect, just over 1% of the total number of new child benefit claims failed to satisfy the habitual residence condition. Those who are refused child benefit are mainly people whose claim to asylum has not yet been decided, others who have not obtained a work permit or people who have had only a minimal or no attachment to the workforce since coming to Ireland. In the case of families in the asylum process, direct provision, funded by the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform, is available, ensuring that the rights and welfare of the children are protected.
I am satisfied the habitual residence condition is achieving its intended purpose, allowing access to our social welfare schemes to persons who are genuinely and lawfully making Ireland their habitual residence while preventing unwarranted access by persons who have little or no connection with the State.
Why does the Minister believe it is achieving the purpose for which it was intended given, as he admitted in his reply, that the reason it was brought in was EU enlargement? Excluding people from those countries from receiving the child benefit payment was found to be contrary to EU law. Now those people are automatically included. Only approximately 3,000 children of asylum seekers are affected by this.
Has the Department received any legal advice on Ireland's position in respect of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which we signed up in 1992, and are there any contradictions, as I believe there are, in regard to articles 3 and 26 which guarantee the right of every child to benefit from social security? Does the Minister believe it is appropriate that children living in direct provision are expected to survive — I accept their food and shelter is paid for — on €9.60 per week?
Prior to the introduction of the habitual residence condition in 2004, full examination was given by my Department to the question of whether it was consistent with a number of international conventions to which Ireland was party, including the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The convention allows national legislation to prescribe the manner of provision of that benefit. The benefit does not have to be a cash payment. Benefit-in-kind may equally satisfy the requirement. Therefore, direct provision is made in the case of persons in the asylum process. That provision meets the obligations of the convention and Ireland is not obliged to pay child benefit in addition to this. The outcome of this examination was, therefore, that the habitual residence condition was not incompatible with the provisions of the convention.
We had a very good debate in the Seanad on this subject in the past couple of weeks. I made the point, which I reiterate, that because we have a direct provision system, funded by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to look after the families and children, this was accepted under international law as fully meeting the obligations of the convention. It is wrong to suggest people are being asked to survive on the minimalist cash payment. The State is more than meeting its obligations.
We must be careful because we do not want to open potential floodgates. If there was no restriction, many more people would try to come to this country to access the welfare system, which is quite generous and is a good one by any international standards. Although we cater for almost all people, particularly our colleagues in the European Union, having the habitual residence condition is clearly of benefit.
The Minister would have to admit that one would want to have many children to make child benefit a pull factor. Does he accept the amount of money given to these children each week deprives them of basic necessities? Surveys have been done on this. Children have been unable to get school uniforms and school shoes, to participate in trips with their classmates and to get proper school lunches because of the amount of money they get under direct provision. Has the Department accurate figures on the number involved?
Is the Minister aware of his chief appeals officer's criticism of the long delays in dealing with asylum appeals? What is his view on the fact that some people, who have faced particularly long delays, have been able to avail of child benefit?
I gave the Deputy detailed information in my reply. As I said, from January to August 2007, a total of 28,542 claims were decided. Of these, 3,430 required particular examination of the habitual residence condition. Some 90% of these satisfied the condition and only 341 were refused as the condition was not satisfied.
I repeat we provide direct provision. I would be astonished if certain children were excluded under the school meals programme where that is provided. I have no knowledge of that happening and I suspect it is not. All children in schools where meals are provided can avail of them.
They are not provided in every school.
It is about a balance. It is not only about a few people, as the Deputy rightly said. The generosity and flexibility in the system is indicative of the Irish people and the amount of resources we have put into this area. It would be wrong to be irresponsible and to attach no conditions for people coming to this country to access what is a very generous social welfare system.
Anti-Poverty Strategy.
Róisín Shortall
Question:58 Deputy Róisín Shortall asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the action he plans to take to eliminate consistent poverty; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32574/07]
The overall goal in the National Action Plan for Social Inclusion, NAPinclusion, is to reduce the proportion of our population experiencing consistent poverty to between 2% and 4% by 2012, with the aim of eliminating consistent poverty by 2016. The goal is based on the trends since 2003 in the EU survey on income and living conditions, EU-SILC, conducted by the Central Statistics Office.
It also involves using an updated set of indicators devised by the Economic and Social Research Institute which are considered more realistic and in keeping with living standards today compared with the indicators used for the earlier national anti-poverty strategy.
The latest results from EU-SILC, released last week, indicate that the rate of consistent poverty in the population in 2006, using the new measure, was 6.5%, down from 8.2% in 2003. The achievement of this goal is dependent on the policies to be pursued over the next ten years.
These are detailed in the NAPinclusion and the NDP which contains 12 high level strategic goals in key priority areas supported by over 150 more detailed targets and actions. It is based on a life cycle approach designed to achieve greater co-ordination of policies and their implementation in relation to children, people of working age, older people and people with disabilities. Increasing participation in employment is at the core of the strategic approach as it remains the main route out of poverty to a decent standard of living. Those most at risk of consistent poverty among those of working age live in households where there is no one in employment, or if they are in employment, they are on a low income.
The majority of children experiencing poverty also live in such households. A key focus of policies in the NAPinclusion is to remove, as far as practicable, remaining disincentives to obtaining employment in the social welfare system and obstacles to entitlement to other services. Proposals to achieve this are being developed in my Department, with reference especially to lone parents and parents in larger families.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
A second overall strand is the further development of an activation approach involving case management. This includes ensuring that those not in the workforce have access to appropriate education, training, help with job search and services such as child care. Generous income support is being provided for children and additional education supports are being targeted at children living in disadvantaged areas. Provision is also made in the NAPinclusion to provide income support and to improve access to and the quality of essential services, such as health, education and housing, especially for those for whom employment is not an option.
In the case of older people, the aim is to ensure that they have an adequate income and access to services. In the period since 2003 the proportion of older people below the EU at risk of poverty threshold has more than halved from 29.8% to 13.6% in 2006. A further consequence has been the reduction in the rate of consistent poverty from 3.1% in 2005 to 2.2% in 2006. In effect, therefore, the 2012 goal for reducing consistent poverty has already been achieved for older people.
The causes of consistent poverty are multi-faceted and there is no single answer for the many diverse groups in that position. Achieving the overall goal will require not just effective and well resourced policies but also a significant degree of co-ordination among all service providers. The plans provide for this approach. I am confident that from the strong backing and determination being provided by Government and working with all the relevant stakeholders, this ambitious goal will be met over the next five and ten years.
Does the Minister accept last week's EU-SILC figures are a serious indictment of the Government's record in recent years? According to those figures, Ireland has the third highest rate of people at risk of poverty. Does the Minister accept Ireland is still a shockingly unequal society?
I do not.
Does he accept the figures which show the rates of poverty are static? Last year 6.9% of people were living in poverty while the figure for the previous year was 7%. Little or no progress is being made on tackling the rates of poverty in our society. After a decade of so-called prosperity, why are 293,000 people still living in poverty? Given the targets set in the national anti-poverty strategy, what is the Minister's analysis of that figure? Why are so many people still living in poverty when there has been such economic prosperity in the past decade? More importantly, what does the Minister intend to do to reach the targets he has set?
The measurement used is utterly meaningless and I will explain why. EU survey results for 2006 are not yet available from all EU countries. However, in the case of Ireland, given the progress being achieved in tackling poverty, it is expected that our comparative position should improve. Ireland has regularly pointed out the limitations of the use of at risk of poverty measures. They may well change it because it has become so meaningless.
First, it is not suited to making comparisons between countries at different stages of economic development with different living standards. This can yield illogical results, some of which have just been put on the record by Deputy Shortall. For example, less developed countries have lower at risk of poverty rates than Ireland. Bulgaria is shown to have an overall at risk of poverty rate that is 1% below the EU average of 16%, while Ireland is 4% above the EU average rate at20%. However, Ireland's at risk of poverty income threshold, adjusted for purchasing power, is €18,909 for a family of two adults and two children. This is just over four times greater than the figure used in Bulgaria, which is €4,269.
Second, it masks the reality of the situation in Ireland where we have had significant economic growth and where increases in household income have outstripped even substantial increases in the incomes of those dependent on social welfare or on low wages. This is exactly what has happened in this country. People are now significantly better off in real terms but at risk of poverty figures clearly do not reflect this fact. To be honest, I do not think anybody gives any credibility to the fact that, on this measurement, we are supposedly the third worst country in Europe. It simply is not true. Quite frankly, the measurement is a nonsense and is meaningless to every country. It does nothing to promote the agenda. If one looks at the figures I have given, I think we would all agree that suggesting that Bulgaria is better than the EU average is a nonsense. The way the measurements are used at the moment come up with what I have just described as an illogical and, quite frankly, ridiculous conclusion.
Does Deputy Shortall have a supplementary question?
This is the equivalent of shooting the messenger. The argument about the way of measuring poverty in this country is over. Whatever disagreements may have existed about it in the past, we know now that all of those groups working in this area, including research organisations and indeed the Minister's Department, accept the way of measuring poverty in this country.
What these figures show is that in recent years where the Government has targeted poverty among older people through changes and improvements in the social welfare system, that has worked. However, the glaring problem that remains is the question of child poverty. Does the Minister accept that 11% of children are living in poverty and that this represents some 96,000 children? One in nine children under the age of 14 is living in poverty.
I concede that there has been very welcome success in tackling poverty among older people through welfare measures. Is the Minister now prepared to put the same kind of focus on and target resources in the same way in respect of children at risk of poverty? By any standards, having 96,000 children living in poverty amid the prosperity in this country is entirely unacceptable.
I am glad the Deputy shifted her focus and argued for dealing with the real picture where there are children living in consistent poverty. There is no question about that and we have been dealing with this issue. The figures are coming down. That is why under the NAP inclusion plan, the national development plan and Towards 2016, we want to eliminate it within that timeframe. That is something into which we should all put our energies and efforts.
As a point of information, last week's figures show that the rate of child poverty is increasing in this country.
I want, again, to deal with what we know to be the factual position as opposed to some statistical analysis. I pointed out to the people who bombarded me with statistics that we are actually dealing with real people here.
Yes, 96,000 of them.
Frankly, I am not interested in dealing with people who are using all sorts of very strange measurements to come up with certain figures. The fact is that we are targeting a huge amount of our resources to deal with children in poverty. In respect of the two big groups, children in families where there is unemployment and the children of single parents, there are two pilot schemes being carried out at the moment, one in Coolock and Kilkenny, which involve all the services working together to try and move——
For goodness sake, pilot schemes in this day and age are a nonsense.
The Deputy wanted an answer to the question. It is not about the amount of money one simply gives somebody; it is about using the services to get them out of the situation and into employment, which is what we are doing — just so the Deputy knows what the strategy is.
What the Government needs to do is put in the resources.
Social Welfare Benefits.
Olwyn Enright
Question:59 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will amend the rent supplement scheme in order that the rent supplement is paid in advance rather than arrears and that rent caps accurately reflect the market cost of accommodation; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32583/07]
Rent supplement is administered on my behalf by the Health Service Executive as part of the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. Rent supplement is subject to a limit on the amount of rent that an applicant for rent supplement may incur. These rent limits are set at levels that enable the different categories of eligible tenant households to secure and retain basic suitable rented accommodation, having regard to the different rental market conditions that prevail in various parts of the State. Household size is taken into account and the objective is to ensure that rent supplement is not paid in respect of overly expensive accommodation, having regard to the size of the household.
Setting maximum rent limits higher than are justified by the open market would have a distorting effect on the rental market, as we learned in the past, leading to a more general rise in rent levels. This, in turn, would worsen the affordability of rental accommodation unnecessarily, with a particular negative impact for those tenants on lower incomes, including people in low-wage employment.
Notwithstanding these limits, under existing arrangements, the Health Service Executive may, in certain circumstances, exceed the rent levels. This discretionary power ensures that individuals with particular needs can be accommodated within the scheme and specifically protects against homelessness.
In January 2007, a review of the maximum levels of rent which a person may incur and still be eligible to receive a rent supplement was completed. The purpose of the review was to inform the process of setting new limits, applicable from January 2007 until 30 June 2008. The review included consultation with the HSE, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, the Central Statistics Office, the Private Residential Tenancies Board and voluntary agencies working in this area. This process ensured that the new rent limits reflect realistic market conditions throughout the country and that they will continue to enable the different categories of eligible tenant households to secure and retain suitable rented accommodation to meet their respective needs.
Additional information not given in the floor of the House.
Arising from the review, rent limits were adjusted upwards, from January 2007, for a number of household types in 14 counties.
There are currently over 59,000 rent supplements in payment, of which some 24,000 have been awarded since the current rent limits were set in January 2007. This demonstrates that rented accommodation is available within the current rent limits. I intend to have all limits reviewed next year with a view to implementing any revision found to be necessary from 1 July 2008.
The fact that there are over 59,000 tenants receiving rent supplement suggests that payment in arrears is not causing difficulty. Given the scale of cost involved and the Government's other social provision priorities, I have no plans to change the current arrangement.
It is estimated that the cost to the Exchequer of paying rent supplement in advance would be in the region of €33 million. Changing the payment arrangements would have to be considered within a budgetary context and in the light of resources available to me for improvements in social welfare generally.
Will the Minister outline any proposed changes in respect of the area as a result of all this consultation? The Minister will be aware that there are about 4,500 people in bedsits, the majority of whom are in Dublin city centre. They were described by the director of Threshold as poor quality, damp, vermin-infested firetraps, lacking basic necessities. The preliminary findings of Threshold's access housing unit's survey revealed that the biggest reason that landlords will not accept rent supplement is because it is paid in arrears, rather than in advance. Are there proposals to change that so that it will be paid in advance? It is clear that it is the biggest stumbling block. Landlords are looking for the deposit and the first month's rent upfront and if they can get someone who will pay that, they will pick them rather than the person who is on rent supplement.
Where a person makes an application for rent supplement and is refused, it takes about six weeks to assess the application. This effectively means that if the person does not get it, he or she owes the landlord six weeks' rent, which forces him or her back into homelessness. In light of the fact that between 5,000 and 6,000 people are homeless in this country, does the Minister intend to make any of these changes?
As I said earlier, the review for this year has been completed. Clearly, there are issues within the system at which I would like to look. The system that is in place will run up to June next year. In the meantime, we will look at all of the issues, some of which were raised by Deputy Enright and some of which I am aware of, having interacted with many of these people who come to my clinic, as they do to those of Deputy Enright and everybody else.
What we are trying to do in the system is to genuinely support and help people who are in need of rent supplement and to use the system in such a way that nobody, in effect, should be homeless. That is the reality. I agree with the Deputy that the quality of some of the properties people are renting is appalling. People should not be given rent supplement for such properties. I was in the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and the Deputy might recall that I set up the Private Residential Tenancies Board and brought the legislation through the House. I would like to have a more full-on system. As the Deputy is aware, landlords must notify the Private Residential Tenancies Board of the tenancies involved. I have been alerted to some loopholes in that system whereby that has been avoided in a number of cases. If it needs legislation to do that, apart from just policy change or a shift in emphasis, we should introduce it.
The other major change has been moving people from the Department of Social and Family Affairs system to local authority housing. That is beginning to gather momentum. Many people who were on rental schemes, supported by my Department, are now in housing, having been housed in social housing by local authorities, but there are aspects with which I am not happy.
I remind the Minister that there are 43,000 low income families on housing lists, compared to 23,000 in 1991. The Minister states that the review has been carried out and will not come into force until June. Will he inform the House if any of the questions to which I refer will be dealt with when changes are made in June?
Does the Minister intend to review rent caps? If the limit is €600 one cannot add €10 or €15 per week to the rent and this forces the tenant into a poorer standard of house, below that limit.
It would be wrong to provide a specific answer seven months in advance of what may happen because that would have a major effect on the market and the people with whom we are both trying to deal. When the review, which will involve voluntary organisations, the Private Residential Tenancies Board and various Departments, is complete——
I am confused. Is there another review for next year?
There was a review that set up the system that is effective from January 2007 to June 2008. We are now beginning a review for 2008.
Olwyn Enright
Question:60 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if the national carers strategy will be published before the end of 2007 as stated in the social partnership agreement, Towards 2016, and An Agreed Programme for Government; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32584/07]
Supporting and recognising carers in our society is a priority of the Government and has been so since 1997. Over that period, weekly payment rates to carers have been greatly increased, qualifying conditions for the carers allowance have been significantly eased, coverage of the scheme has been extended and new schemes such as carer's benefit and the respite care grant have been introduced and extended. Recent reforms of the scheme allow people in receipt of certain social welfare payments, who are also providing full-time care and attention to a person, to retain their main welfare payment and receive a half rate carer's allowance. The amount paid will vary depending on their means.
One of the key Government commitments in the national partnership agreement Towards 2016 is the development of a national carers strategy and this commitment is reiterated in the programme for Government. One of the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs Report on the Position of Full Time Carers, which was published in 2003, was that such a strategy should be developed. I am pleased that we are now in a position to act on that recommendation.
The strategy will focus on supporting informal and family carers in the community. While social welfare supports for carers will clearly be a key issue in the strategy, other issues such as access to respite and other services, education, training and employment will also feature strongly. Co-operation between relevant Departments and agencies is essential if the provision of services, supports and entitlements for carers is to be fully addressed. For that reason, all relevant Departments and agencies will be involved in the strategy and there will be appropriate consultation with the social partners.
My officials have been in discussions with their colleagues in other relevant Departments to decide on the best approach to the development of the strategy. In view of the need to ensure that appropriate arrangements and structures are in place to support its development, it will not be possible to complete the strategy by the end of this year, as had been intended originally.
An interdepartmental working group, chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach, is being established to develop the strategy and to manage the consultation process. I expect the strategy to be completed by summer of 2008. The recent improvements in the income supports available from this Department represent major improvements in supports available to carers in the community. The development of a national carers strategy provides us with an opportunity to build further on these improvements and to consider other areas where progress can be made.
Why did the Government fail to prioritise the national carers strategy and meet its commitment in the social partnership agreement, Towards 2016, and in the programme for Government, which was only decided six months ago? It promised the carers strategy would be developed by the end of 2007. There are 27 days remaining and the Minister has made it clear this commitment will not be met. Will the Minister guarantee that the strategy will be published by summer of next year? Will specific commitments be made and quantified in terms of cost? This is what carers groups want. They do not necessarily want a glossy book to launch the strategy but set timeframes.
Will there be a focus on young carers as part of the national carers strategy? This is of concern to everyone. I do not expect the Minister to tell me what will be in the budget tomorrow but maybe he can give us a taste of whether the commitments made to carers in the programme for Government, such as the increases in eligibility, the doubling of the means test respite care grant and the extension of the fuel allowance, will be met?
Much as Deputy Enright might like me to do so, I cannot put the budget on the record of the House this afternoon. The development of a strategy for carers, which has happened over the past few years, resources and major income supports are very important. I, like Deputy Enright, have met many carers throughout the country who say that the quality of their lives has been transformed in recent years, not just because of the financial supports but because of the easing of the conditions by which one can access support. The process must be inclusive and that is the way carers want it. I have listened to what the groups want and they know what the Government is doing. They are supportive of the approach taken in the recent past.
These issues are on the table. It was not possible to have the strategy ready by the end of the year, a target that was unrealistic. I have instructed those involved in the process to finalise the strategy in the next six months. I agree with Deputy Enright that we do not need a glossy brochure to set out the strategy — some targets are obvious. Much of it is set out in the NAP inclusion and Towards 2016. It is a question of managing resources to get to the point where people will see continued improvement.
Social Welfare Fraud.
Olwyn Enright
Question:61 Deputy Olwyn Enright asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the action he is taking to combat cross-Border social welfare fraud; the number of people being investigated; the number of people who have been prosecuted to date; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [32585/07]
A memorandum of understanding between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland concerning co-operation and mutual assistance in the administration of social security schemes was signed on 9 October 2000. The memorandum provides for the establishment of a management committee, which meets several times a year and oversees and directs the programme of mutual co-operation and assistance. The operations forum directed by the committee meets once per quarter to co-operate and assist in facilitating the investigation of social security benefit fraud with a cross-Border dimension. It undertakes individual fraud investigations and larger projects. It is also committed to sharing best practice in counter fraud operations.
The report of the operations forum for the year ended March 2007 states that six projects undertaken in that year resulted in seven prosecutions and a further 15 cases being considered for prosecution. Under the memorandum of understanding, considerable benefit has been derived by my Department in preventing cross-Border fraud. Procedures are in place to deal with ongoing referrals, fraud and non-fraud through a single point of contact in each jurisdiction. Referrals are made for a variety of reasons, for example, to establish whether there is an existing claim in payment in either jurisdiction, to establish contribution details for a pension or to ascertain payment details as part of an investigation for a means-tested payment.
In the year ended March 2007 my Department received a total of 700 inquiries from Northern Ireland and 100 inquiries from Great Britain. Belfast operations intelligence unit is the single point of contact for non-fraud referrals or inquiries for my Department, relating to jobseeker's allowance, incapacity benefit and income support. This unit carried out a total of 4,000 checks in the year ended March 2007. Fraud inquiries are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, by fax, to the national intelligence unit in Folkstone. Similar arrangements are also in place for fraud and non-fraud inquiries, with the pensions service, Newcastle-upon-Tyne for pensions and the disability benefit unit, Blackpool for disabled living allowance.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
In addition, in July 2004, a social welfare inspector was assigned to the Garda National Immigration Bureau to assist my Department and the bureau in the investigation of social welfare fraud and breaches of the immigration Acts, to provide information and intelligence and to promote the benefits of a multi-agency approach to immigration and employment law enforcement. A second inspector was assigned to the bureau in August 2006.
A joint control exercise is undertaken periodically at airports and ports in the Republic of Ireland, Northern Ireland and Great Britain. It involves personnel from the Garda National Immigration Bureau, my Department and the United Kingdom immigration service. Social welfare inspectors assigned to the Garda National Immigration Bureau conducted inquiries into 600 social welfare customers in 2006, achieving savings of €3.5 million, and 415 social welfare customers up to the end of November 2007, achieving savings of €3.61 million.
For the Minister's information there are six minutes for each question, two minutes for the Minister and I wish to leave some time for discussion. The full reply is included in the Official Report.
I must stop giving all this wonderful information if I cannot deliver it.
The Minister will be aware of recent media reports in respect of an allegation of fraud in his constituency. That is why I raised this question and I do not suggest that cross-border fraud is the only type that occurs.
The Minister provided figures on prosecutions but I am not sure whether they relate solely to this country or to a group of countries. How many of the prosecutions in question relate to cross-border fraud involving Ireland and other countries? The Department made savings of €375 million last year in respect of anti-fraud measures. How much of that money related to internal fraud and how much related to fraud of a cross-border nature? Is such information readily available to the Minister? What steps has he taken to consult his counterparts in other EU countries, particularly those from which a large number of people have come to Ireland to live and work, in the context of putting in place measures to ensure that payments are only made in one state?
The Deputy's question was specific to Northern Ireland and, therefore, all the information I provided relates to cross-Border fraud involving people from that jurisdiction.
The question relates to cross-border fraud and to EU borders.
There has obviously been a misunderstanding because the information I provided relates specifically to people from Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. The Deputy's supplementary questions related to all EU borders. There is a memorandum of understanding in place and cases are continually being investigated. The seven prosecutions and the 15 pending relate specifically to fraud involving people from the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.
I am aware of the issues that have arisen in my constituency. The matter was investigated and I provided information in respect of it. When the data was broken down, and even though a substantial overall number were involved, it appears that only three people were either in breach, to a certain degree, or their cases fell into a somewhat grey area.
There are issues that arise in respect of the broad spectrum. In an EU sense, openness and the necessity to exchange information are crucial. I am not sure of the exact position because I have not yet attended a Council meeting since becoming Minister. However, this will be one of the issues with which we will deal. Reporting is continual among the relevant units here and in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.