Bernard Allen
Question:79 Deputy Bernard Allen asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the way he will tackle fraudulent child benefit claims; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12110/08]
Other Questions.
Social Welfare Fraud.
Liz McManus
Question:83 Deputy Liz McManus asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the control measures in place to ensure that claims for child benefit and early child care supplement in respect of non-resident children are bona fides and remain so; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12204/08]
John Perry
Question:123 Deputy John Perry asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the steps his Department has taken to ensure that non-Irish EU nationals living here and claiming child benefit for children living abroad are valid claimants; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12111/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 79, 83 and 123 together.
The prevention of fraud and abuse of the social welfare system is an integral part of the day-to-day work of the Department. I am committed to ensuring that social welfare payments are available to those who are entitled to them. I am also determined to ensure that abuse of the system is prevented and is dealt with effectively when detected.
All child benefit claims require a minimum level of information and documentation to be provided and verified before being awarded. The amount of information and documentation required varies depending on the customer circumstances, for instance, the child's place of birth. Given the significant changes in the child benefit customer base and in the value of child benefit payments, the control policy for the child benefit scheme and, consequently, the early child care supplement, ECS, scheme, has been reviewed to ensure that controls against fraud and abuse of the schemes continue to be effective and relevant.
As a result of this review, enhanced and updated control measures have been devised, which enable the automated issue of forms, that is, certificates, to subsets of selected groups of customers for completion and return to the Department to confirm that they continue to satisfy the conditions for receipt of child benefit and ECS. In the case of non-Irish national recipients who are resident in Ireland with their children, certification that the children continue to reside here is required. Proof of such residence can take the form of details of the school or college the child attends or, if the child is not of school-going age, details of the doctor or crèche he or she attends. Such information is used to verify that children are resident in Ireland.
In the case of EU nationals who are working in Ireland but have qualified children living in another EU state, certification by their employer of continuing employment is requested. If the required certification is not provided within the timescale requested — 21 days — child benefit or early child care supplement payments are suspended pending further inquiry. If certification is subsequently provided, payments which were suspended will be made in full. A percentage of all replies is checked to ensure the accuracy of the information provided, with cases referred to social welfare inspectors for follow-up action as necessary. These new certification reviews commenced in November 2007 and approximately 23,000 review forms have issued since then. This number will increase in the coming months. It is expected that more than 100,000 customers will be reviewed this year.
I tabled this question on foot of the comments the Minister made about the issue of fraud during the debate on the Social Welfare Bill. The figures given on that occasion were stark. It was mentioned that a survey found that 1.7% of the 500 Irish nationals who were surveyed were involved in social welfare fraud, compared to a figure of 13.9% in the case of non-Irish nationals. It is clear that a significant number of people engage in fraud of this nature. The Minister mentioned that when it is balanced out, there is an overall level of fraud of 2.3%, which probably does not seem so bad. Was each of the payments being made to the 13.9% of non-Irish nationals and the 1.7% of Irish nationals immediately suspended? Were the payments which had been made under fraudulent circumstances reimbursed to the Department of Social and Family Affairs? Was legal action taken to ensure that the moneys which should not have been paid in the first instance were given back to the Department? The Minister briefly outlined the steps which are being taken to prevent social welfare fraud and ensure it does not happen so frequently. Are strengthening mechanisms proposed to ensure that fraud does not take place? The Minister mentioned that letters are being sought from schools etc. Is that happening on a regular basis? Is such an approach adopted only when a cohort of 1,000 cases has been examined? Is each child benefit application the subject of such control procedures?
Child benefit control procedures have been effective to date. Payments are not made on foot of claims until all the necessary documentation has been obtained and verified. Sometimes this causes problems for the individuals concerned. We have to ensure we protect the taxpayer. The proper information has to be provided. The Department of Social and Family Affairs has a good working relationship with its counterparts in other countries. If claims are made in respect of children who are living abroad, we need proof, in the form of birth certificates, for example, of the existence of such children, their ages, their locations and their living arrangements etc. I have already highlighted how we deal with non-Irish nationals who are living here with their children. We look for confirmation of school attendance from their schools if they are of school-going age. If they are not yet old enough to go to school, we are happy to receive letters from the local crèche or doctor with whom they are associated. It is an effective scheme.
It is clear that we have to remain vigilant — there is no question about that. A number of units within the Department of Social and Family Affairs are making efforts to instigate control mechanisms to ensure that fraud is kept to an absolute minimum. There will always be a certain percentage of the public who try to defraud any system. We have to ensure that we do not allow such people to get past our system. If they do, we have to seek them out and catch them quickly.
It is all very well to say we have to remain vigilant. I am not sure that the Department of Social and Family Affairs is being vigilant. The recent report produced by the Office of the Comptroller and Auditor General showed that there is a fraud rate of 14%, in relation to child benefit, in respect of non-resident children. Some €137 million is spent each year on child benefit and early child care supplement payments in respect of non-resident children. The fraud rate of 14% in such cases is significant. What action has the Department of Social and Family Affairs taken since the Comptroller and Auditor General's report was made available? How many checks of the kind mentioned by the Minister have been carried out since that report was published? As regards sanctions where payments are suspended, how many have been suspended?
Some 2,769 claims have been suspended to date because of late or non-reply of residency funds — as no reply has been received within the required timeframe. There can be legitimate reasons for this. The circumstances of individuals can change so that they are no longer within the system. As I have indicated, with the additional staff we have put into the control unit at Letterkenny, this year we expect to do approximately 100,000 individual reviews. That will certainly ensure there are no——
How many reviews have been done?
I believe I gave the figure of 23,000 earlier. The overall scale and the numbers of families and children involved are significant. The number of children of Irish nationality is 967,767 and there are more then half a million claims. From the EU 27 the claims come to 48,000 and non-EU applications comprise 28,000. That is over half a million claims involving 1,113,209 children. Taking the scale of what Ireland and the Department is doing in trying to ensure that we treat all children fairly and equally and support families in need in this regard, that is a fair return. I accept, however, that we must maintain a high level of activity in this area, and indeed increase it. That is why I have indicated in my replies to Deputies Shortall and Enright that there will be specific focus and emphasis on this area this year, with more than 100,000 individual cases being reviewed.
What steps will the Minister take to ensure the system is strengthened? I have asked him this already and he more or less outlined what is being done at present. However, my reason for asking is that my original question in March looked for the figures in 2007. The statistics I am using, according to the reply I received — for 13.9% of non-Irish nationals and 1.7% of Irish nationals — relate only to last year. That means that a significant number of people under the system currently in place were still able to make fraudulent claims through the Department. Therefore this is still a live issue and its scale remains significant. The response the Minister has given appears to indicate that matters are all right when clearly they are not, if that number of people are able to make fraudulent claims.
I am seeking a more specific response from the Minister in terms of what his Department is doing to ensure that this level of fraudulence cannot continue. Obviously the measures taken to date have been insufficient to tackle the problem.
One must keep in context the scale of the inaccurate information found. The figure is very low, given the size of the Department's operation and the numbers of families and children involved. I may have given Deputy Shortall a wrong figure a moment ago. Since November last some 23,000 certificates were issued. That is the figure I——
That is not what I asked.
I know it was not and I am sorry. I have a note in front of me, and I just wanted to correct that on the record and confirm that 23,000 certificates have been issued. A detailed check was recently carried out, again, on about 10% of all the different claimants involved. In approximately 3% of cases the information proved either to be incorrect or could not be validated. These claims were, of course, suspended and referred to the social welfare inspectorate for investigation. What I have indicated to Deputy Enright are all the recent cases, particularly as regards the certification process. We must continue to enhance those new ways of doing business, ensuring we can detect where fraudulent claims are being made. As I have said, the significance of the information the Department is now obtaining from abroad is quite substantial. The message going out to the various communities, and indeed, our own, is that it is becoming virtually impossible to get away with sustained fraud within the social welfare system, particularly as it relates to child benefit.
I would like the Minister to respond to Question No. 83, which refers to the payment of child benefit for non-resident children. There are approximately 3,000 non-resident children in receipt of the benefit. What steps has the Minister taken in respect of the fraud uncovered to date and how many payments have been suspended since the Comptroller and Auditor General reported on the matter? How many checks is the Department carrying out annually?
I gave that figure to the Deputy.
The Minister did not.
There are 2,900.
The figure of 2,769 is the overall figure for child benefit and does not pertain superficially to non-resident children.
If I do not have the specific figure on non-nationals in front of me, I will obtain it for the Deputy.
Under EU regulations, overpayments of family benefits in one state, such as Ireland, are recoverable in another state. The child benefit section pursues recovery in such cases.
I went to the trouble of tabling a question and the Minister should be respectful enough to reply today. I asked about child benefit fraud in respect of non-resident children and it seems the Minister has no figures at all, which is very disappointing.
The figure I have given to the Deputy is the only specific figure I have in front of me today.
It was asked whether the Minister has any figures on the number of prosecutions and suspended payments. Child benefit fraud is an offence.
I gave a figure on that matter and on certification. If there are other issues on which I need to provide information, I will be happy to do so. I can only give the Deputy the information I have in front of me.
Can the Minister repeat the number of prosecutions?
I will have to forward the number to the Deputy; I do not have it here.
Data Protection.
Brian O'Shea
Question:80 Deputy Brian O’Shea asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if the audit by the Data Protection Commissioner of his Department’s procedures for processing personal data is finalised; the main conclusions reached; and the specific actions his Department will be taking on foot of these conclusions. [12205/08]
The Department administers some 50 schemes and makes payments to 1 million people each week. The nature and volume of its business mean that it is heavily dependent on information communications technology, ICT, facilities to carry out the bulk of its business and it has responsibility for a significant amount of data.
Given the nature, scale and diversity of its work, the Department holds extensive and detailed personal information about its customers. It is fully aware of its obligation to safeguard the security of this data and it employs a wide range of measures to protect the confidentiality, availability and integrity of information. Where staff are found to have breached these measures, disciplinary action up to and including dismissal is taken.
The Office of the Data Protection Commissioner undertook an audit of the Department in late January 2008. The commissioner has not yet finalised the report of his findings. When the final report is received, its findings and recommendations will be carefully examined by the Department with a view to taking whatever additional actions are necessary.
Over recent years, the Department has continuously strengthened security and data protection protocols. Staff are regularly reminded of their obligations under data protection and security policies and of the penalties applicable to any breach of these obligations. Policies and procedures covering the use of systems and data have been developed and communicated to the staff. These policies and procedures are under continual review and are updated as appropriate. The most recent policy update took place in June 2007, with the publication of a corporate information security policy. In addition to the policy measures, the Department is also ensuring that higher levels of data protection are built into its latest generation of ICT systems to reflect the increased threats in this area. Considerable resources have also been devoted to increasing the security and monitoring facilities in its older systems.
A high level group has been established within the Department to review access management and control. The primary focus of the group is to direct the development of the Department's policy on access to data, ensure that existing measures are co-ordinated across systems and to initiate further work programmes to address emerging issues.
To preserve public confidence in the operations of the Department, there has been, and will continue to be, considerable focus on the issue of data confidentiality. I assure the Deputy that the Department recognises that security measures must continually evolve and it will continue to reflect this in its systems and procedures.
When does the Minister expect to receive the review of the Data Protection Commissioner? Will he put on record his commitment to implementing the recommendations of that review?
I obviously cannot speak for the Data Protection Commissioner.
When does the Minister expect to receive the review?
I hope it will be finalised shortly. I am not the Data Protection Commissioner and I await his report.
I know that. I am asking when the Minister expects to have his report.
I said "shortly". I do not know. The Data Protection Commissioner is responsible for presenting the report and when he does, Deputy Shortall will be the first to hear of it.
Is the Minister committed to implementing the recommendations of the commissioner's report?
Any recommendations that can be implemented to enhance the security of the systems on behalf of our customers will be, and are at all times, implemented.
Is that "Yes"?
Since the difficulties took place that led to the Data Protection Commissioner preparing this report, has the Minister done anything to strengthen the procedures in the Department? For example, I understand a digital fingerprint records exactly at what staff within the Department are looking. Are spot checks done to ensure staff are only accessing files relevant to their own direct line of work?
As a result of my and the House's interest in this issue over time, I raised it at management board meetings within the Department to ensure that the most up-to-date security systems, in terms of the new ICT systems that are being put into the Department, give the highest possible level of protection to the information supplied by customers. There are spot checks in the Department and senior staff have responsibilities in this area also. At all times we seek to enhance the process.
In addition, new enhanced security systems are being included in some of the existing older systems that are maintained. Given the scale and number of operations — over 50 schemes and over 1 million customers getting payments every week — by and large the Department and its officials are doing a very good job.
Pension Provisions.
Thomas P. Broughan
Question:81 Deputy Thomas P. Broughan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the arrangements that he will put in place to ensure that exported State pensions are stopped once the pensioner is deceased; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12182/08]
Olivia Mitchell
Question:110 Deputy Olivia Mitchell asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the position regarding the life certification project on the 14% of recipients of contributory State pensions who reside abroad; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12118/08]
Paul Connaughton
Question:141 Deputy Paul Connaughton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he will confirm if his Department is alerted when a recipient of a contributory pension outside of Ireland dies; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12117/08]
Paul Connaughton
Question:147 Deputy Paul Connaughton asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the number of people in receipt of the contributory pension living outside the State; the breakdown of same according to country; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12116/08]
Jimmy Deenihan
Question:149 Deputy Jimmy Deenihan asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the basis on which his Department is checking the records of thousands of Irish pensioners living abroad following concerns that welfare pensions are being received by people who have died; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12115/08]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 81, 110, 141, 147 and 149 together.
There are currently 246,000 customers in receipt of a contributory State pension. Of these, some 37,000 — 15% — reside outside the State in some 63 countries. The majority of these are resident in the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States of America, Canada, Germany and Spain. A breakdown of the number of recipients can be provided to the Deputies if necessary.
In the Department's experience, the death of a contributory State pension recipient residing abroad is generally notified to the pension section without delay, either by a spouse, a surviving relative or a financial institution. Notifications of customer deaths are received on a daily basis through the customer contact centre, in writing and via e-mail. Pension payments are stopped on receipt of these notifications and appropriate action initiated.
The Department has put arrangements in place with a number of foreign institutions to ensure that we are notified when a recipient of a contributory State pension resident outside the State dies. In this regard, the Department works in close co-operation with the Department of Social Development in Northern Ireland and the Department of Work and Pensions in the United Kingdom and arrangements are underpinned by a memorandum of understanding between these organisations. A control arrangement is also in place with the Australian Centrelink authorities whereby the Department receives a monthly electronic file of deaths where an Irish State pension is in payment. The Department is a member of a six nations' group, involving Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, which addresses and agrees common approaches on control issues and the sharing of information.
In addition, at the start of each year, a mail shot issues to all contributory State pension customers resident abroad notifying them of their new pension rate and reminding them to let the Department know of any changes to their circumstances that would affect their entitlements. Any letters returned undelivered receive urgent attention. This process acts as an additional control measure.
As part of the Department's ongoing control strategy, periodic reviews are undertaken in order to determine customers' continuing eligibility for pensions. In this regard, the Department has initiated a customer certification process for contributory State pension customers resident in Ireland and abroad. Letters issue to customers for completion and return of a certificate within a specified time. Follow-up action is taken where no reply is received from the customer or where the letter is returned undelivered.
To date, some 1,000 letters have issued to contributory State pension customers. Of these, 300 were issued to pension recipients resident outside the State. Some 81% of these customers have responded and replies are still being processed. It is planned to issue a further 7,000 letters to contributory State pension customers resident abroad by the end of 2008.
I am committed to ensuring that social welfare payments are available to those who are entitled to them. I am satisfied that measures are in place to ensure that payments to customers resident outside the State are stopped when they are deceased. The Department's control programme is carefully monitored and the various measures are continuously refined to ensure that they remain effective.
When this issue hit the headlines last month it was reported that the Department was of the view that some 8,000 non-resident pensioners were deceased and the pension payment was continuing in those cases. Is that true? Is that the view in the Department?
It is utterly untrue.
That has clarified the matter.
The Minister stated that a letter goes out at the start of the year notifying people about pension increases and he stated that there are 37,000 non-resident Irish pensioners. What checks are in place to pick up on persons who have died since the previous year? The Minister spoke about the system in Australia where there is an official notification procedure. What about all the others, particularly pensioners in the UK? What checks does the Department carry out to ensure that those people are still alive?
If the Department is sending such letters as a type of check, sending out 300 to a cohort of 37,000 is really only scratching the surface. I want the Minister to give some assurance to taxpayers that he is taking a vigorous approach to this and putting in place a system which will pick up on those fraudulent payments. He has not done that to date and perhaps he could take this opportunity to reassure us that he is taking the issue seriously.
I am happy to do so. First, it was never the case that either I or any official in my Department believed the story presented in certain elements of the media regarding 8,000 persons. These are simply control mechanisms that are implemented consistently across a range of schemes.
Second, we have no evidence whatsoever, or reason to believe, that the 37,000 Irish citizens who live abroad and who are entitled to a contributory Irish pension on the basis of work they have done in this country are not entitled to those payments.
Third, we have no reason to believe that persons in that cohort have died and are still getting payments. We have no evidence to suggest that this is the case, but it is part and parcel of the normal control mechanisms, which have been going on for years within the Department, in these areas.
I indicated that one of the biggest cohorts is in the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. There is a strong working relationship between the pensions Departments there and here and they are in constant contact. The protocols in place involve a continuous flow of information on deaths that take place.
In cases where a person dies, there may be some death benefits available and people tend to notify the Government immediately that a person has died. Banks also do so and probate and wills processes also bring out that information. It is rare for somebody to make an attempt, on behalf of a deceased person who was in receipt of a contributory pension, to defraud the State on the basis of the person's pension rights. We do not have evidence that this is the case.
Did anything trigger this review of the 8,000 persons, or was it merely something that was waiting to be done and it happened to be on a particular date? In fairness, I am aware from my previous occupation that the Department can be thorough when somebody dies in terms of examining the person's estate. It is obviously more difficult where somebody is resident abroad.
Does the Department intend to issue the swipe cards it is progressing to persons living outside the State to collect their pensions or will such cards work abroad? Regardless of whether the Department intends to do that or makes a decision not to do so for persons resident outside the State, will this review be completed before then? If the Department will be making further contact, giving persons a swipe card would be on a par with giving them another pension book to enable them get their pensions. That issue should be resolved first.
On the first point, our approach was not exceptional. It was part of the normal process of reviews and control mechanisms constantly being implemented by the Department with regard to various schemes. It was presented by some elements in the media as if it was something new and special and as if it had been triggered by something specific, but that is not the case. The Department does this consistently and constantly across a range of measures. It just happened that on this occasion we were considering this aspect of it. It was not done on the basis of any belief that there was large-scale fraud taking place, but as part of our control mechanisms. Where there is significant taxpayers' money involved, we want to be able to verify the spending, including from our own perspective.
The swipe cards are being rolled out currently. I do not have any details with regard to overseas recipients because not all recipients in Ireland are yet on the swipe card system, but we will achieve that down the road. It is a system that could work. The basis of certification and verification is strong and detailed. Given that swipe cards are used to access funds from banks, the bank controls within the card for its use are specific and difficult to misuse. Therefore, the use of swipe cards would enhance our security systems, particularly for those who are abroad.
The irony of my position this afternoon is that Deputies constantly make representations to me with regard to how hard the Department is on individuals, how it makes black and white decisions and how it is not generous or flexible when it comes to accepting people on schemes. The complaint is that the Department takes a very thorough view. The complaint I receive most often from colleagues is that the Department is very strict. It is interesting, therefore, that the questions being asked today suggest the Department is not strict enough. I believe the Department is vigilant and that it acts in the best interest of all taxpayers and protects the resources being paid out.
I do not think we are being unduly strict in expecting the Minister to have a system in place to pick up on deceased pensioners so that he can arrange for their payments to be stopped. The Minister has not said anything today to reassure me that he has a robust system in place. When he writes to pensioners every year to tell them about the increases in pensions, specifically the 37,000 non-resident pensioners, what does he ask them in terms of returning information to him? I presume they are asked to sign some document to say they are still alive. What kind of proof does he require in terms of a witness to that signature? Will the Minister clarify the details with regard to the form people are required to return? What percentage of non-resident pensioners have failed to make that return in recent years?
The information in question is not just to do with individual pensioners. There is a strong and direct relationship between the Department and many of the institutions in other countries, whether banks, social welfare departments, pensions systems or death registries. I provided some detail to the Deputy with regard to relationships with Northern Ireland and the Department for Work and Pensions in the United Kingdom and how the control mechanisms work in that regard and with regard to Australian institutions.
My question was more specific. What does the Minister ask from pensioners in terms of returning information on an annual basis? What information does he ask them to return to validate the fact that they are still alive?
We send out information, particularly when a new book is being issued and there is an increase in the pension, to individual recipients setting out their responsibilities with regard to notifications of any nature that would affect their payments. We must try to verify that the information we receive is real and we do that in conjunction with the Departments in other countries that have an interest in the matter.
Social Welfare Code.
Ruairí Quinn
Question:82 Deputy Ruairí Quinn asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs if he has requested information from the Private Residential Tenancies Board seeking the details of landlords who have been prosecuted by the PRTB for their failure to register tenancies with the board or to comply with a determination order; if his Department pays rent supplement to landlords who have been prosecuted by the PRTB; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [12180/08]
The supplementary welfare allowance scheme, which is administered on my behalf by the community welfare division of the Health Service Executive, provides for the payment of a rent supplement to assist eligible tenants who are unable to provide for their immediate accommodation needs from their own resources and who do not have accommodation available to them from any other source.
Under the Residential Tenancies Act 2004, landlords are legally obliged to register tenancies with the Private Residential Tenancies Board, PRTB. My Department supports the requirement that all tenancies, including those facilitated by rent supplement, should be registered with the PRTB and is committed to working closely with it in ensuring that all rent supplemented tenancies comply with the statutory system of tenancy regulation and safeguards. To that end, my Department provides details of rent supplement payments to the PRTB to enable it identify tenancies that are not registered and to take any follow-up action necessary.
The PRTB has advised that it has successfully prosecuted one landlord for failure to register tenancies with the board. Rent supplement was paid to one of that landlord's tenants and was not paid directly to the landlord in that case. Rent supplemented tenancies which are liable for registration with the PRTB should be registered. In that regard, I am satisfied that the arrangements I have outlined contribute to ensuring that landlords whose tenants receive rent supplement comply with this statutory obligation.
I said earlier that there appears to be a serious problem with regard to the exchange of information between the Department, the Revenue Commissioners and the PRTB. Does the Minister accept that is the case? A recent report from the Comptroller and Auditor General showed that communications systems were weak in that regard. What steps has the Minister taken to ensure that his Department's computer system is capable of picking up on this information and relaying it to the other two agencies? With regard to the PRTB, in how many cases has the Department discovered rent supplement was being paid to landlords who were not registered? The Minister has stated that one landlord was prosecuted, but in how many cases did the Department find that landlords in receipt of rent supplements were not registered with the PRTB as is required in law?
I have taken action since the issue was raised in the House some time ago. Discussions have taken place between the Department, the Revenue Commissioners and the PRTB to see how we can improve the existing system. The Department notifies the PRTB of all tenancies where rent supplement is paid by the Department. I do not have a figure for the total number but only have the figure I provided this afternoon. I will ask that and will provide the information to the Deputy.
My concern is for individual clients who need support from the State in obtaining accommodation here. People have often confused the issue and thought the Department's relationship was with landlords. It is not, it is with individual clients whom we support in finding the best accommodation available to them, and we will continue to do that. There have been some improvements and we would like further improvement with regard to how that information flow takes place.
I do not want the client or recipient of the social welfare payment to be wholly responsible for the tax affairs of a landlord. That would be unfair. There are some mechanisms in place to ensure tax compliance and that the standard of accommodation being sought and given is of a high quality. This involves not only the Department but also a number of other agencies, as indicated earlier, including local authorities. Since the issues have arisen, the Revenue Commissioners, the Department and the PRTB have been engaged in discussions to try to enhance and align their systems so as to have a better flow of information.
I welcome the fact the Minister is finally having discussions with the different groups involved. The Minister has said he does not want the individual client to suffer and I agree with him in that regard. However, the reality is that the individual clients do suffer because they do not get the best accommodation available. This is because we do not have a system in place that ensures the social welfare payment, the rent supplement and the fact that a landlord is registered are linked with the quality of the accommodation. Those three things do not link up but they should. The Minister is not willing to take responsibility for leading the change in respect of this. When is the Minister likely to conclude the discussion so we can ensure those three things are linked?
I will take Deputy Shortall's question as well. I am trying to include one last question before the end.
When we raised this issue with the Minister last month, he more or less washed his hands of it. He said that it had nothing to do with him and that he was responsible for rent supplement and answerable to the client. The Minister is paying out €420 million per year in rent supplement. The question of whether the landlords who received that rent are tax compliant should be a matter of concern to him. Given that he is responsible for that very substantial payout, it is not acceptable for him to say that it has nothing to do with him.
I did not say that.
That is exactly what he told us last month. He told us that he was not responsible for tax collection. I welcome the fact that he has seen the light and sees himself as having some responsibility in that area. Regardless of how late it has happened, now that the Department is participating in some discussions with Revenue and the PRTB, when does the Minister expect new agreements to be in place in terms of the protocols covering the transfer of information between those three agencies?
Two clear issues have come up through discussion. The first is that it is beginning to emerge that both the Labour Party and Fine Gael do not really want housing to be the responsibility of local government at all.
We want to see people in proper accommodation and people to pay their taxes.
They obviously do not have any confidence that all of their councillors will fulfil their responsibilities at local level.
(Interruptions).
The Minister, without interruption. Deputies should allow the Minister to reply.
If it is proposed that the existing legislative basis for the responsibility for the quality and standard of housing stock in the country, which at the moment is the responsibility of local authorities, should be changed and if both parties are now saying that they do not have confidence in their own councillors to carry out those responsibilities, we will review the situation.
In respect of the second issue, I previously made it clear to Deputy Shortall that, in my view, it was not the case that recipients of social welfare payments or rent supplement should be responsible for the tax affairs of the local landlords or landlords anywhere in the country. That would be gravely wrong. It is certainly not the case that I have no particular view on the matter. Of course, I have a view on it but it is of vital importance that the other agencies who have direct legislative responsibility for many of these issues fulfil the responsibilities they have. My Department and its officials are quite willing to work with and enhance any of the arrangements that affect the customers of the Department of Social and Family Affairs in working with the Revenue Commissioners, the local authorities or the PRTB to ensure that we have the best system for our customers and the highest quality standard of accommodation in place and that the best value for money is being achieved for the money we give out on behalf of taxpayers in this country.
That is not happening.
I will take a final supplementary question from Deputy Shortall.
Far from trying to put the responsibility on the client, I am asking the Minister whether he, the Minister who pays out €420 million annually in rent supplement, is prepared to accept his Department's responsibility in respect of ensuring that the landlords who receive that rent are tax compliant.
The Minister will give his final reply.
I have told the Deputy on three occasions that my Department provides all the information to the PRTB and the Revenue Commissioners that it is legally allowed to provide and that there are mechanisms in place with the PRTB where we notify it about all new tenancies.
Will the Minister involve local authorities?
This triggers other mechanisms of information flow to the Revenue Commissioners as well. The Deputy is well aware of that. What I am not prepared to do is to make the individual social welfare recipient responsible for other people's tax affairs. It would be grossly wrong and unfair.