JOINT COMMITTEE ON JOBS, SOCIAL PROTECTION AND EDUCATION debate -
Wednesday, 21 Mar 2012

Social Welfare Fraud: Discussion with Department of Social Protection

Vice Chairman

I welcome Ms Kathleen Stack, assistant secretary of the Department of Social Protection, Mr. Philip Cox, Mr. Bernard Tonge and Mr. David Dillon, principal officers, and Ms Geraldine Gleeson, chief appeals officer.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. By virtue of section 17(2) (l) of the Defamation Act 2009 witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence at this committee. If you are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and you continue to do so you are entitled thereafter only to a qualified privilege in respect of the evidence. You are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and you are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that where possible you should not criticise nor make charges against any person or persons or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable.

I believe Ms Stack has two presentations and I ask her to begin, with Ms Gleeson to follow.

Ms Kathleen Stack

I thank the Chairman and the committee for the opportunity to make this presentation. Members have a copy of my opening statement which I will go through quickly. In it I look at the first two areas requested by the committee: first, the issue of black economy workers who claim social welfare benefits and second, casual workers claiming benefits. The chief appeals officer, Ms Gleeson, will outline the work of the social welfare appeals office.

Overall, the Department is very conscious of its obligation to protect public moneys and is determined to ensure that social welfare fraud is prevented and is dealt with effectively when detected. The Department fully recognises the potential for shadow or black economy activity to increase in a recession and consequently has refocused its efforts on sectors where this is prevalent. Black economy activity is not confined to any particular business or to specific sectors. It generally occurs where a business or an individual has the opportunity to deal largely in cash, suppress details of income or engage in concurrent working and claiming of social welfare payments.

In September 2011 the Department published a fraud initiative, covering the period 2011 to 2013. Central to this initiative is a commitment to ensure a concerted and active policing of the black economy sector where there is a prevalence of social welfare fraud and tax non-compliance. Policing what is conventionally viewed as black economy activity is as much about ensuring a level playing field for compliant businesses and taxpayers as it is about combating social welfare fraud. A range of specific activities is being undertaken in 2012 to ensure black economy workers are appropriately targeted. These include, first, interagency co-operation. In co-operation with other agencies, the Revenue Commissioners in particular, the Department tackles shadow economy working by a combination of intelligence collation, assurance checks and outdoor operations, including inspections and direct investigations.

A second measure is high-level co-operation with Revenue. The Department liaises bilaterally with Revenue through the high-level group consisting of senior officials from both organisations. One of the priorities of the group is to ensure ongoing collaboration and interaction between the organisations, including activities designed to combat social welfare fraud and tax non-compliance in the black economy.

A third measure is operational co-operation with Revenue. Joint investigation units have been established between the Department and Revenue. These play a key role in targeting particular types of shadow economy activity and workers in the employed sectors. Work carried out by the JIUs includes monitoring and compliance activity associated with sectors where tax non-compliance and social welfare fraud and abuse are common. A series of high-visibility site checks and employer inspections is systematically conducted by departmental inspectors and Revenue officials to detect incidences of social welfare fraud and tax evasion. These visits and inspections are undertaken in those sectors where the risk of fraud and tax non-compliance is most prevalent.

A fourth measure is working with business and unions. The Department participates in the hidden economy monitoring group with Revenue and employer and union representative groups. This group provides a formal structure to monitor developments, share experiences and make proposals for combating the hidden economy. In December 2011 and January 2012 four regional sub-groups were established. Each of the groups has identified a number of priority shadow economy sectors, including public service contracts, cross-Border and non-national contractors, one-off housing, illegal fuel smuggling, identity fraud, transient traders, road haulage, market traders and illegal waste collection. In addition, the Department engages with and meets business and industry representatives. Increasingly, the Department is finding that bodies and individuals are prepared to share insights and specific information with us with regard to shadow economy activity in times of recession. With regard to direct investigations and interventions, where intelligence or reliable reports are received about specific sectors or persons engaged in concurrent working and claiming or under declaration of income, reviews of eligibility are immediately undertaken. Case interventions are undertaken based on assessments of compliance risks and other relevant information.

Regarding data matching, the Department has extensive legal powers to support the sharing of data for the purpose of controlling the entitlement to and payment of benefits. Data is exchanged on an ongoing basis with agencies and, in particular, with the Revenue Commissioners to support its activities in combating shadow economy activity. The approach taken by the Department is frequently reviewed and is regularly adjusted to concentrate on the areas of greatest risk, based on its operational experience and credible information received from industry and business sectors.

I would like to briefly look at the question of casual workers claiming social welfare benefits. At present, in excess of 93,000 jobseeker's benefit and assistance clients are engaged in regular casual employment. The work situation for these clients falls into two main categories. First, some 85,000 are involved in the casual and part-time worker category. These include those involved in work traditionally described as casual in that it involves employment where the person has no assurance of being re-employed with the same employer on an ongoing basis. The employment is typically for a few occasional days and the number of days involved depends on the level of activity in the employer's business. Also included in the general description of casual workers are those involved in part-time employment. These clients have an ongoing expectation of employment from the same employer, although the number of days and the hours per week vary. This category encompasses some 43,000 jobseeker's assistance and some 42,000 jobseeker's benefit clients.

Second, there is also the systematic short-time category. This covers employment where the person works on a reduced number of days in the working week on a systematic basis. In these cases, there must be a clear repetitive pattern of employment each week, for example, one, two or three days in each week - or perhaps two days this week and five days next week - with that cycle repeated on a systematic basis. There are over 8,000 jobseeker clients in this category.

All jobseeker customers in these categories must give a written declaration of the days they work on a weekly basis. To receive a jobseeker payment for that week, the customer must have been unemployed for three days in the previous six-day period. On the jobseeker's allowance scheme, 60% of the client's earnings from employment are taken into account in calculating the rate of payment, with €20 per day being disregarded for associated employment expenses - subject to a maximum of €60 per week.

This issue of casual workers was discussed last September at a previous presentation by the Department. At that time, it was recognised that there had been significant changes in the labour market in recent years. It was recognised that there had been a significant increase in what is termed atypical employment and that, for many, the traditional nine to five pattern of employment was increasingly no longer the norm. The Department's jobseeker schemes generally reflect this traditional pattern as they are based on the concept of a day of unemployment in the context of a six day week. In this regard, there was some discussion about the Department's report - Review of the Application of the Unemployment Benefit & Assistance Schemes Conditions to Workers Who Are Not Employed on a Full-Time Basis - which includes, inter alia, recommendations to move away from the day of unemployment concept and introduce a system that incorporates recognition based on hours. Such a system would be more flexible than the current one and would serve to encourage people to take up part-time employment. The Department recognises that this can be important in helping people back into the labour market and provides a significant first step leading to full-time employment.

However, moving from the current system to the one envisaged in the report involves degrees of complexities and an inter-disciplinary group has been established within the Department that is tasked with resolving these issues. It is intended to have recommendations ready for inclusion in the next budget. In conclusion, I hope I have given the committee a good sense of the work in progress in the Department in these areas and I welcome any comments and views.

My colleague, Ms Geraldine Gleeson, will outline the work of the social welfare appeals office.

Ms Geraldine Gleeson

I will examine two issues that members wanted me to address, the increased workload of the office and how we are meeting that challenge and the separate issue of providing information on how and why the Social Welfare Appeals Office reaches its decisions and whether such information, when made anonymous, can be made available to citizens and if not, why not.

How we are meeting the challenge of the increased workload of the office and how we process appeals and the time taken to clear them is of vital importance to our customers. From about early 2009 the number of appeals we received started to increase dramatically and by 2011 had more than doubled from an average of 15,000 to 32,000. The pressure placed on the office by this rapid increase in workload has meant that our customers have suffered unacceptable delays. The actions taken to date include 12 additional appeals officers being assigned and eight retired appeals officers, amounting to three full-time equivalents, being recruited and retained for 18 months. We are working more efficiently and we have improved our business processes and our IT support.

In 2010 and 2011 we dramatically increased our capacity to finalise decisions. Decisions finalised increased from an average of 13,500 to 34,027 in 2011. To put this in context, if we had finalised the same number of cases in 2010 and 2011 as we did in 2009, the number of cases on hand at end 2011 would have been 41,000 instead of the actual outturn of 17,488. More detailed figures are set out in the table in the document supplied to members.

Processing times are more important than the size of the backlog as they measure the length of time an appeal takes from date of registration to date of decision. The time taken to build our capacity to deal with the increased inflows meant a catch up situation developed, which has led to the deterioration in processing times as we clear through the backlog. The figures in the table supplied tell us that before the current pressures on the office, the average processing time was around 14 weeks for a summary decision and 31 weeks for an oral hearing. This peaked last year at 25 weeks for a summary hearing and 52 weeks for an oral hearing. By February of this year these reduced to 22.4 weeks for summary decisions and 38.1 weeks for an oral hearing, which is evidence that we have significantly reduced the backlog and are working on more current cases.

The table in the document supplied shows processing appeals takes time, even at the best of times in 2006-08, and reflects the fact that the appeal process cannot be a quick one. Once an appeal is received, there is a statutory requirement for a response to that appeal by a deciding officer addressing the contentions raised in the appeal. If new evidence is submitted, a review of the decision will be undertaken by the Department and this may involve a further medical examination or a re-investigation of the appellant's circumstances. When the submission is received from the Department, in many cases there is a need to conduct an oral hearing of the appeal, which requires the booking of a venue at a location convenient to the appellant, arranging the attendance of witnesses, notifying appellants and handling cancellations. At the best of times, it is not a quick process.

The second issue, relating to the publication of information on how and why the social welfare appeals office reaches its decisions, has been raised recently in a High Court challenge seeking that we publish our decisions, suitably anonymised, for the purpose of assisting appellants and their representatives in making an appeal. In the course of that challenge, comparisons were drawn with the Social Security Commissioners in Northern Ireland, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal and the Equality Tribunal, which publish their decisions. I do not consider these are appropriate comparators for a variety of reasons, not least the issues of scale. In 2010, the Social Security Commissioners finalised 141 decisions, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal finalised 2,783 and the Equality Tribunal finalised 322, while the social welfare appeals office finalised 28,166 decisions in the same period.

We can also be distinguished from those bodies in that the Department publishes extensive guidelines and other information on social welfare entitlements which explain the way decisions are made and the factors that are taken into account in making those decisions. An extensive range of scheme specific information leaflets is also produced. There is a decisions advisory office of the Department which has responsibility for ensuring consistency in decision making. Those of us in the appeals office liaise with it to both give and receive feedback on issues arising on appeal, and those issues are discussed with appeals officers. That learning is in turn reflected in the published guidelines.

We publish case studies both in my annual report and on our website. I accept that the number of cases published relative to the case load is extremely small but until now we simply did not have the capacity to do more. I fully accept that expanding the number of case studies would be of benefit to our customers and their representatives. For 2012 I have put in place measures to increase the number of cases made available on the website and to better select the cases, particularly where issues arise that have implications broader than just the particular case such as where a legal or an interpretative issue arises.

Vice Chairman

I will take some questions but I remind members not to discuss individual cases if possible. I realise that on occasions individual cases are used as examples but I ask them not to mention a case about which they are particularly concerned and discuss policy. I will first call Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh. Senators John Kelly and Feargal Quinn have indicated. If other members are interested in putting a question I ask them to indicate that to me.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

My questions concern both presentations, the first of which is Ms Stack whom I thank her for the presentation. A major debate currently is about the €600 million or €700 million the Department says is controlled savings. The figure in terms of fraud is approximately €24 million or €25 million, although as Ms Stack acknowledged it has been increasing in recent years, but is there a need for additional inspectors? If as the Department stated the controlled savings potentially could be €600 million, is there a need for additional inspectors to try to capture the difference between that magical number and the current savings achieved from identifying fraud? Is there a need to increase the advertising in terms of the damage social welfare fraud is doing?

The other part of the presentation was on casual or part-time workers. Have any changes been made in that regard? Currently, people on jobseeker's allowance must give a written declaration if they are working on various days. Has that system been made any easier? I asked that question of a colleague of Ms Stack in a previous presentation. For instance, if someone gets a day's work and they have the option to do an additional day is it possible for them to text the Department with their PPS number and the day they will be working, given that will result in a saving to the Department because it would not have to pay for that day?

There is often a concern among those on jobseeker's allowance in particular that if they state they are working for a period of time they will lose their entitlement to fuel allowance, back to education allowance and so on by delaying their availability. Those in receipt of the back to education allowance in particular appear to be discouraged in that regard because the timeframe is tight and they are discouraged from taking up work in that period. Some of them might chance their arm and opt for work in the black economy.

Regarding the second presentation, I congratulate Ms Gleeson and her team for the huge amount of work being done. I do not envy them, having regard to some of the cases I have sent to them. Do they find that many of the cases are becoming more complex in terms of the appeal? In my office we find some cases to be quite complex, partly because of a lack of understanding when people are filling up forms in terms of what must be provided to the social welfare deciding officer in the local office. Has Ms Gleeson's team identified trends in terms of the information that is not provided and so on? Would they regularly make recommendations to the Department on the problems that must be tackled at the outset rather than when it comes back to them when it becomes more difficult to deal with?

Are the files that are transferred from the Department physical files or is that done electronically? If they are physical files, is that causing a delay? How does the Department decide which cases can be dealt with on a summary basis and those dealt with on the basis of an oral hearing basis? That is a question I am often asked.

Vice Chairman

Does Ms Stack wish to respond to some of those issues before we proceed?

Ms Kathleen Stack

I will address some of them and then ask my colleagues to comment on some of the others, if that is appropriate.

On the control savings versus the overpayments figure, our target for control savings this year is of the order of €645 million. The €25.9 million the Deputy referred to is fraudulent overpayments where we have raised overpayments against individuals whom we suspect of fraud.

On the question of resources, we have about 600 staff who are devoted to control work in some shape or form. At the more high end of it, which is where Mr. Cox's unit is located, we have 89 officers in what we call the special investigation unit. In terms of whether we would like to have more officers, we probably would but, in fairness, we do a good job in terms of the resources we have, and Mr. Cox can comment on the special investigation unit aspect if he wishes.

In terms of advertising, the number of anonymous reports we have been receiving has increased dramatically in recent times. The figure for anonymous reports received last year was 16,917; the figure for 2007 was only 604. The message in terms of people feeling the need to make reports to us on various issues of social welfare fraud is getting across. We could perhaps do more to advertise the free phone number but in terms of getting out the message that social welfare fraud is something we must tackle that message has gone out. I will ask my colleague, Mr. Bernard Tonge, to comment on the texting option by casual workers.

Mr. Bernard Tonge

As I understand it, the question refers to the Department allowing a casual jobseeker customer use SMS texting to declare their employment in a particular week. There are no current plans for that. The Department is extending the use of text messaging to its customers to remind them of appointments they have and of their next signing day arrangements. It does not plan to use text messaging for declaring the unemployment pattern. As Ms Stack stated in her presentation, for casual workers there must be three days of unemployment in the previous six days. That declaration must be made on a weekly basis. Currently, and for the last number of years, it was made on what we call a casual signing docket where the person would put in their days of unemployment etc. We have automated that process now and are hoping to expand into the use of scanning that facility when it is returned, thereby removing some of the clerical effort. More particularly, from the perspective of the customer we are introducing an on-line facility where the customer can go on-line and declare their unemployment pattern. That facility is working on a pilot basis in one local office at the moment and depending on how it progresses, we will extend it to other offices over the coming months.

Ms Geraldine Gleeson

On the question of whether things are getting more complex, the answer is "Yes". That is particularly the case with the medically-based schemes because the criteria are subjective, not objective, and that makes them all the more difficult. We make many recommendations to the Department, particularly in regard to how it communicates a disallowance and what information is given because this is crucial when making an appeal. We also make recommendations regarding the forms because the more information captured at claim making stage, the better the initial decision will be and appeals might be reduced.

Recently, an additional form was developed in the medical service for people on review. It is a form for parents to give their own account of the daily activity in looking after their children, particularly for schemes such as the DCA. We are finding that innovation quite helpful on appeal because a clear statement is being given up front of the parent's situation. Everything is getting a little more complex, particularly in the medically-based schemes.

We still very much use physical rather than electronic files. The Department is working a little now on digital documents and the benefit of those is work can be done anywhere and shifted as needs arise. Clearly, I see us moving in that direction. The medical corps in the Department, who are similar to us in that they have summary decisions and oral hearings or in person assessments, are piloting e-files at summary decision level and we will look closely at this. The UK appeals service is also piloting this. The clear advantage would be that files would not have to go all over the country to appeals officers, which would be great. Being a bit of a technophobe, I see a problem with people working with e-files, particularly where people are in front of them and there are witnesses. It is much easier to have a physical file. It is something we will watch over the next few years.

With regard to summary versus oral decisions, it is down to whether one can fairly decide the case on a summary basis and whether one feels, having examined the file, that one has enough information. For example, one would have to consider if the person elaborated on a question whether he or she might make a better case or explain it more fully. Obviously, it is down to the individual appeals officer. Generally, if we are asked for an oral hearing, we accede to it.

Deputy Aengus Ó Snodaigh

I thank Ms Gleeson.

Senator John Kelly

I have a question for Ms Stack. I refer to the overpayments structure. I do not have a problem with the Department recovering overpayments where it makes errors. However, it is unfair to do so in cases where people write to the Department to inform officials of a change of circumstance, ask to have this rectified and this is not done for a year or two. This leads the claimants to believe they have a right to continue as they are and it is unfair to go back to them some time later to try to get the money back. I agree overpayments need to be collected.

When the Departments declares it has achieved massive savings, is the figure multiplied by 78? If it is not 78, what is the multiplier?

With regard to the waiting times for appeals, what Ms Gleeson stated might be the case but for the ordinary Joe Soap applying for the carer's allowance, invalidity pension and so on, it seems to take six months for his application to be dealt with and if he is refused, the appeal can take between nine and 12 months. There is also a feeling that anyone applying for those schemes is automatically refused and the Department is forcing them all down the road of appeal.

I recently dealt with a case of a man who had to take two years off work. He went on carer's benefit to look after his wife who had Parkinson's disease and when the two years was up, he had to apply for carer's allowance, which was refused, despite his wife's condition worsening. This was a crazy decision. Another man I helped had applied for invalidity pension having spent three years on the disability allowance. When I saw his medical evidence, I asked him whether any part of this body was working because it was that damning, yet his application was refused. The same has happened with DCA applications. I recently visited a house where the father had been in receipt of the allowance to look after his child. He was refused when he reapplied for no good reason. The circumstances had worsened, not improved. I was in the house for five minutes and I would not like to have spent much longer there. In that five minutes, I realised this man had an awful lot to do. The young fellow was outside in my car trying to start it.

Some of the decisions made by medical referees have to be questioned considering that 50% of them are overturned on appeal. That indicates that 50% are wrong in the first place. That is why we have so many appeals. With regard to the way applications are dealt with, I previously cited the case of Christy Browne, author of My Left Foot. If he applied for disability allowance today, he would be refused on the grounds that he is able to type with his big toe. That is what is going on. Fellows that have serious medical illnesses are being told they can do something else. Even if they were manual workers all their lives, they are told they should go into an office to do some light work and they will not be granted disability payments. There is a great deal wrong with the way medical referees are dealing with these claims and it is no wonder we have so many going to appeal and so many frustrated applicants.

Senator Feargal Quinn

This has been educational and I have learned a great deal, particularly from Ms Gleeson. A total of 28,000 finalised appeals is huge. Could steps be taken to reduce the need for appeals? The figure seems to be way over the top.

I recently visited a large international company here which employs significant numbers. The company has very few supervisors because it trusts its employees. The person I met said one of the interesting traditions in Ireland is that we do not tolerate whistleblowing or employees snitching on others who are doing something wrong. That does not apply in other countries. If the company received 70 complaints, 69 would come from non-national employees who would regard whistleblowing as normal behaviour to protect the interest of the company whereas the Irish feel they are being disloyal to their colleagues if they whistleblow.

A large number of people know of others who are cheating the social welfare system. Is there a tradition of informing the Department of fraud? Ms Stack referred to hotlines to encourage people. I feel almost disloyal to suggest that people would be encouraged to squeal on their neighbours or workmates but, on the other hand, when I started in business many years ago, people would often not accept a job unless they were paid cash into their hands. People would not work for the local butcher unless he paid cash in hand. That has changed, to a large extent because there is now a recognition that doing so is cheating. Whistleblowing should, therefore, be seen as something which protects one's job, interests and taxpayers' money. Has there been any move in this direction or will it always be regarded as disloyal to inform on a colleague?

Deputy Anthony Lawlor

I have a number of questions for the witnesses. In the mid-1980s we had problems associated with the black economy. Have we learned from previous experiences and was any report done at that stage in regard to how we could address the black economy issue? On security of PPS numbers, it is easy to access another person's PPS number and use it. I welcome the proposed online facility for use by casual workers. Has the use of other more secure methods, such as fingerprinting or eye-scanning, in respect of people in receipt of social welfare benefits been considered given the concerns in relation to security of PPS numbers?

On casual workers, I have a copy of a report published in 2007 which includes a number of recommendations in regard to casual workers. The joint committee is currently engaged in work in the area of casual labour. In January 2008, there were 20,000 people engaged in part-time work. In January 2009, there were approximately 65,000 people engaged in part-time work. The current figure in this regard is 85,000. It was stated it is proposed to address this issue in budget 2013.

I am alarmed to hear that some of the recommendations of this report have not been acted upon. Why is that? The report proposed positive changes in the working regime in this country yet almost seven years later little has been done. The labour market moves rapidly. It is a shame to say that the Department of Social Protection does not appear to move at all.

It is a criticism of the departmental officials that there has been no change in the casual working area. I will provide an example. I can work ten hours a week and claim three days payment but if Deputy Kyne works work ten hours a week, in the form of two hours per day, he will not be entitled to any payment. That is not fair. It now appears there will not be any change, in terms of what is being proposed, until budget 2013. We need to get off the fence on this. The objective is to get people back to work, be it for one hour, two hours or three hours per day, potentially leading to full-time employment. What we are currently doing is restricting this. I apologise if my remarks on this appear strong but they need to be stated.

As regards medical cards and appeals for same, who determines whether an illness is a long-term illness? For example, lupus and fibromyalgia are two recognised long-term illnesses within the EU but not in Ireland. I would welcome a response to those questions.

Ms Kathleen Stack

I will respond to some of the questions and will ask my colleagues to respond to others. On the departmental error issue raised by Senator Kelly, we acknowledge, in the context of the over-payment statistics which we compile, that some over-payments are as a result of departmental error. The figure in respect of over-payments due to departmental error in 2010 was €5.2 million. I am not aware of the individual cases referred to by the Senator. If a deciding officer decides to apply a decision from a current date owing to a departmental error, then obviously there was no over-payment assessment.

On the savings figure and the multipliers, the Department uses a range of internationally recognised multipliers. These range from 32 weeks in respect of jobseeker's allowance-jobseeker's benefit to 136 weeks in respect of pensions. The multipliers vary depending on the scheme involved. On Senator Quinn's point in regard to whistleblowing, my personal view is that while previously this was not the tradition it has, if the number of anonymous reports is anything to go by, become so in more recent times. There has been a huge increase in whistleblowing. As I stated earlier in response to a question from Deputy Ó Snodaigh, the figure in this regard for 2007 was 604 and for 2011 was almost 17,000.

Whistleblowing is becoming a tradition. There is a growing recognition among the public that social welfare fraud is not a victimless crime, that it is an issue we need to tackle and about which we must be robust in terms of tackling it. While all anonymous reports do not uncover fraudulent claims, they are a trigger to our examining a case in more detail. I will ask my colleague, Mr. Philip Cox, to respond to the questions regarding the black economy.

Mr. Philip Cox

On Senator Quinn's point, it is a cultural factor in terms of the way the black economy is perceived. We do engage with business and unions on a local and regional basis. This is about ensuring there is an even playing field for compliant businesses. As such that level of engagement is important. Industry and business must be confident that the black economy is being policed. They can and do help us in this regard. Of great assistance in recent times has been the creation of regional hidden economy monitoring groups through which we engage with industry, trade, business and unions locally who are pretty well in tune with what is happening on the ground. My answer to the Senator is yes, we are increasing our efforts across the board.

We are also actively involved in policing of the black economy. While we do respond to things, we also look at things on a sectoral basis. We, and Revenue, have good intelligence as to the sectors wherein there is black economy activity. Our approach is to examine this activity through the joint investigation units with Revenue and NERA. These investigations are intelligence led and across all sectors in respect of which we have fairly good evidence there is black economy activity.

Deputy Lawlor asked if we had learned anything from past experiences. In relation to the black economy, we are constantly learning, including on a daily basis. Our investigators and investigators in Revenue and NERA learn on a daily basis about what trends are emerging. I am old enough to remember the 1980s. I believe we have moved on in terms of the manner in which we do business. In the inter-agency space, there is a great deal of co-operation between the Department, Revenue, NERA, local authorities and so on. That inter-agency co-operation is helping enormously in terms of the way we address issues.

Deputy Lawlor also asked about security of PPS numbers. One of the key developments in this regard is the public services card, which is being trialled in three of our local offices. Some 6,200 cards have been issued. The card will include a photograph and signature of the cardholder. It will also enable facial recognition to become part of the process, thus enabling us to identify people in terms of PPS number security.

Deputy Anthony Lawlor

When does the Department expect to roll out public services cards nationally?

Ms Kathleen Stack

It will be rolled out during the course of this year. We recently received approval for an additional 150 temporary staff to assist in the roll-out. Once they start coming on board, we will be rolling out the cards on a fairly consistent basis. As stated by Mr. Cox, some 6,200 cards have been issued to date.

Vice Chairman

Deputy Lawlor asked what constitutes a long-term illness. I have been told transplant patients are not considered as having a long-term illness, which I think is strange. I ask the witnesses to comment on this and on the issues raised by Deputy Lawlor.

Ms Kathleen Stack

I will ask Mr. Dillon to comment on the part-time work issue as he is more closely associated with the 2007 report.

Mr. David Dillon

When I appeared before the committee in September we discussed the report. After the hearing in September a decision was taken to proceed with it, examine its recommendations and ensure provision can be made for their introduction in the budget for 2013.

A degree of complexity is involved in changing the system operationally, administratively and with regard to the impact on customers. The report recognises that problems exist in the current system, with elements of overcompensation and under-compensation some of which were highlighted in the examples given.

Moving to the concept of hours and away from the concept of a day with regard to unemployment is more flexible. We recognise flexibility is required in the labour market, and we are using the legislative windows available to us and considering the impact on the current administration and the information systems division. We are working on it and we will make recommendations in the next budget.

Deputy Anthony Lawlor

The question I asked is why it took so long.

Mr. David Dillon

The report was issued in the context of social partnership. Employers' bodies made observations as did ICTU, and winners and losers come out of the report. That is its context.

Deputy Anthony Lawlor

Seven years.

Mr. David Dillon

Yes, and a decision was made recently to proceed with it, which will happen in a shorter timeframe.

Chairman

What about the point on long-term illness?

Ms Geraldine Gleeson

I will answer a number of questions beginning with those asked by Senator Kelly. He spoke about many difficult cases and we see such cases ourselves. I fully understand his point. He said people were forced to appeal and asked whether 50% of cases being overturned meant they were wrong in the first place. To make it clear, half of the cases overturned on appeal are overturned by the Department with the other half overturned by appeals officers.

In particular with regard to medical cases, when an appeal is lodged we send it to the Department for its submission on the contentions. In general extra information is provided and it is sent back for review by a medical assessor. It will be reviewed by a different medical assessor to the assessor who examined the case in the first instance. As a result of this a significant number of cases are overturned. There is no right or wrong as these are subjective decisions. It is good practice that it goes to a different doctor on appeal.

An appeals officer can look at exactly the same situation as a deciding officer and come to a different decision. This is the problem. We strive for consistency in the appeals office and in the Department. Typically additional information is supplied on appeal which was not available to the first decision maker. There are many reasons a decision can be overturned. It feeds into Senator Quinn's point on reducing the need and the number of decisions. Better initial decision-making and better information to customers are required to do this. As I explained earlier we work closely with the decisions advice area in the Department and we point out where forms and the information given to clients are deficient.

With the Department we are putting in place a pilot programme whereby when a decision goes back to the Department a different deciding officer will examine it. At present it goes back to the same deciding officer. I also mentioned the new more detailed form being piloted which obtains more information from parents of children with medical difficulties. All of these measures are designed to achieve better first instance decision making. We are always working hard on our own decision making in trying to ensure consistency.

Deputy Lawlor mentioned medical cards for which we are not responsible. Whether an illness is long-term or short-term is not necessarily a specific issue for us. We are concerned about whether the illness substantially restricts the person from taking up employment and what effect the illness has on daily living activities. It is not that we break down the cases according to long-term or short-term illness. Perhaps this is the case with medical cards.

Deputy Anthony Lawlor

We were discussing disability allowance.

Ms Geraldine Gleeson

With regard to disability allowance, the illness is accepted by the decision maker, the medic and ourselves. The question is whether the illness substantially restricts the person from taking up employment. In many cases this decision is made by asking whether the person would be precluded from taking up employment over the next 12 months. Each decision maker must examine this based on the information in front of him or her. The medical assessment service has very detailed medical protocols on the various illnesses which have been mentioned, such as fibromyalgia, and the prognosis and clinical treatment. This feeds into the view expressed by the medical assessor. We also receive information from GPs who are the people's advocates and who explain in detail the effect of the illness and how long it is likely to ask. All of this information feeds into any decision made.

Senator John Kelly

There is no doubt if one applied five years ago for any of the schemes I listed one would have found it much easier to qualify and receive a payment. What has happened over the past five years? The wheel has turned 365° and it is now the opposite as one cannot receive a payment. I have experience of what I am speaking about. It is a fact and I will not get into the cases. I strongly suggest that instead of being tough on new applications some of the cases receiving payment should be reviewed. We were very lax five and ten years ago and people will receive payments for life as a result. These cases should be reviewed.

Vice Chairman

Does Ms Stack wish to comment on this?

Ms Kathleen Stack

No.

Vice Chairman

Ms Stack will take it on board.

Deputy Seán Kyne

I welcome the officials from the Department and thank them for their presentation. The 2010 annual report states the purpose of the database is to create a central repository of decisions and reports which can be used to facilitate training appeals officers. Ms Stack stated measures have been put in place to increase the number of cases made available on the website and to better select cases, particularly where issues arise. What quantity of cases does Ms Stack anticipate will be on the website in 2012? Has this been initiated and when will it be complete? Will the more than 30 schemes be included in the database?

The Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation, Deputy Richard Bruton, has initiated a single appeals body covering the workplace relations commission and more than 2,250 complaints were received in January and February. He announced his intention to provide and maintain on the Internet a searchable database of decisions and their underlying reasons for adjudicators and the general public. Extrapolating the number of cases from January and February the annual amount could be approximately 12,000. Ms Stack mentioned figures with regard to Northern Ireland and other places but this would be a considerable amount. Obviously, if this internal database is provided, it will negate the argument about the cost of looking back on files. If that data is available internally, surely it can be more readily accessible by the public.

When did retired officials start to come back to deal with backlogs? When is it anticipated that it will end? What happens afterwards? Is the Department happy that once the backlog is dealt with, it will be able to maintain a relatively low number of case files? Under a pilot scheme that was pursued in the west in 2010, an official was assigned a caseload to be vetted by him or her. If an oral hearing was warranted, that official would see it through to its conclusion. Has this pilot continued in 2011 and 2012? Has it been rolled out in areas outside the west?

I am sure Ms Stack will agree that one hears many stories about social welfare fraud. Such stories can gain legs. I will mention a story that dates back to the 1980s. A person I know told me about a place he used to work in. An individual was working in the name of his brother who had emigrated and was signing on the dole in his own name. Is that sort of thing still possible? Is it one of the myths one hears about? The person to whom I spoke is fairly reliable. He told me that this certainly happened in the 1980s. I wonder whether the system has been tightened up. Is that still possible?

Deputy Tom Fleming

Ms Stack said in her presentation that "policing what is conventionally viewed as black economy activity is as much about ensuring a level playing field for compliant businesses and taxpayers as it is about combating social welfare fraud". How successful have the measures that are being undertaken been in combatting practices that are prevalent in the market? Over the past 12 months, in particular, I have noticed that people who were very successful in the construction industry, and are still engaged in that industry, are trying to diversify into providing various services in order to maintain their businesses. They are annoyed and frustrated because their quotations are being undermined and undercut in the pricing system.

I am talking about people who have contributed an awful lot. They have complied with their tax and social welfare requirements and looked after their employees. They are now having to operate with much-reduced workforces. They are being forced out of providing employment and seeking work on the open market as they would like to do. How successful has the Department been in tackling these difficulties? If they are not addressed in the short term, more and more of the genuine people to whom I refer will be forced out each day. They are above board with their employees and with the various State bodies. How successful has the Department been in undertaking this business? There is a need to accelerate the whole process.

It was worrying to hear Ms Stack say in her presentation that some operators in the black economy are getting work by means of "public service contracts". Given that local authorities and State bodies are involved, it is mind-boggling that such loopholes exist in the system and these activities are being carried out. It is most frustrating for the self-employed that having made their social welfare contributions, etc., they cannot avail of certain entitlements like everybody else can do. The Minister for Social Protection needs to address that in the short term as well. I know she is working on it at the moment in conjunction with the committee that is reviewing matters.

I accept that in the current economic circumstances - we are familiar with the huge unemployment statistics - the Department of Social Protection is facing a challenging time. It is a trying time for people who are waiting for their appeals to be concluded. Although the length of time one has to wait for an oral hearing has decreased from 52 weeks in 2011 to 38 weeks at present, any such lengthy wait is totally unacceptable. There are people who are finding it impossible to make ends meet and put bread on the table. We need to look at that. We should consider deploying more staff to this area.

I wish to speak about medical examinations. It is hard to believe the expertise of the medical professionals who look after people - doctors and hospital specialists - is being questioned. As Senator Kelly said, 50% of these decisions are being overturned immediately. I question how such decisions were arrived at in the first instance. Most people supply ample medical evidence when they make their applications. Those who omit vital matters often make a second submission to ensure the further relevant information is included. We need to free up the system, use a bit of common sense and be practical about these matters.

I ask the chief appeals officer to re-examine the systems in the Department. When a person makes an application on the basis of a disability, the first doctor will look at it. The deciding officer might then decide to send it to another doctor. The funny thing is that the first decision is often upheld the second time around. The applicant should be called in and examined physically in such cases. If a second opinion is needed, rather than looking at the paperwork of the application, the applicant should be given an opportunity to undergo a full medical examination. It is wrong for an officer to condone the first decision. In many cases, the applicant is being wronged. I ask that such people be allowed to present themselves for medical examination in the future. Such an examination should be conducted in a timely fashion. The applicant should not have to wait for six months.

Vice Chairman

I ask the Deputy to conclude.

Deputy Tom Fleming

I will be honest and say that in many cases, the deciding officer should be brought further into the decision-making process. Rather than subjecting people to never-ending appeals systems that can go on for 38 weeks, we should address this problem at an early stage

Deputy Joan Collins

I will not repeat much of what has been said. I am asking for clarification on the points that have been made by other members about the 50% of applications that are not successful. People in such circumstances have to go through the appeals system. The rate of rejection of applications is particularly high in the domiciliary care area. The main point I wish to make is that there is a need for clarification. My interpretation of social welfare fraud - like that of the Minister, Deputy Burton - is that it can be said to have taken place when people are brought to court and found to have acted fraudulently. Everything else can be assumed to be a misunderstanding on the part of the Department or the person involved. Those who receive social welfare payments are annoyed when they hear constant references to social welfare fraud. People immediately think of the individual social welfare recipient when they hear about fraud. I suggest that fraud can be perpetrated not only by such individuals, but also by employers who are doing bad business in relation to a person.

Although I do not want to speak about specific people or circumstances, I must mention that someone made a telephone call suggesting that a person I know, who has no spleen and cannot work, was working. The anonymous telephone calls must be challenged. If a person telephones and does not give his or her name and an investigation is carried out on the person who is said to be working and receiving a social welfare payment, the least that can be done is that the person's PPS number is taken. If the person is found not to be working, and it was clear the person was not working, a penalty should be imposed on the person who telephoned. This is wasting time and money in the Department of Social Protection in following up anonymous calls which are probably targeting people the callers do not like. Those who make allegations that are proven to be untrue must be penalised. As stated by the representatives, the groups identified a number of priority shadow economy sectors including non-national contractors, one-off housing, illegal fuel smuggling, identity fraud and so on. Are there any areas where there is a particularly high level of fraud in respect of businesses and, if so, what penalties are imposed on businesses found to be fraudulently employing a person in respect of social welfare payments? Has such a penalty been introduced? Have businesses been taken to court? Are businesses allowed to continue if found to be incorrectly employing people?

Appeals in the case of carers take an extraordinarily long time to determine. As they are backdated the person gets the carer's allowance. Some people are waiting nearly a year for their appeal to be determined. We cannot stand over that and go away from the meeting without saying we will have to deal with that issue quickly and efficiently.

Vice Chairman

I ask the delegation to respond to Deputies Kyne, Fleming and Joan Collins's remarks.

Ms Kathleen Stack

I might call on my colleague, Mr. Philip Cox, to address some of the black economy issues.

Mr. Philip Cox

Deputy Kyne said people were working under other persons' PPS numbers. We have had instances of this and it has come on our radar in terms of detections. We have had a number of instances in 2011 whereby people were using somebody else's identity or PPS number to work and then claim social welfare payments under their own PPS number and known identity. This is probably at the higher end of the scale in terms of seriousness. There have been a number of convictions for that offence recently in the courts, the last such case being in Galway. In many of these cases a custodial sentence is handed down. We are aware of the problem and certain measures are in place whereby if we consider that people are working under false identities we would visit on-site without prior notification and ask the person to produce identity. It is a factor. We have come across instances of it and have dealt with it. The response to it is serious because the offence is at the higher end of the scale as the person has assumed somebody else's identity. In certain instances the employer was totally unaware of the fact that the individual was using an assumed identity. It can and does happen. Thankfully, we have had some successful detections in that regard.

Deputy Fleming raised a number of points in regard to the level playing field, how successful we are and, in particular, public service contracts and public procurement. Perhaps I can deal with the latter issue first. That is a particular priority for us and Revenue. In the context of Revenue, there are rigorous procedures that must be gone through in respect of tax certification and public procurement procedures. We have spoken to industry sources on the whole question of public procurement. It is one particular planned activity we are undertaking this year. We did a number of public procurement site projects in 2011. These were major infrastructural projects whereby Revenue, the National Employment Rights Authority and ourselves went on site without notification and interviewed individuals employed on the sites. The results were variable. In one huge site employing 600 people, we interviewed more than 160 persons and came across only one case of social welfare fraud. However, on another site we came across a considerable amount of social welfare fraud. In order to address the issue we will be talking to other Departments that are involved in public procurement projects. We continue to engage with local authorities in respect of public procurement projects. We cannot preside over a situation whereby publicly-funded money is being made and there is a question of tax non-compliance or social welfare abuses. It is one of the activities we have looked at in terms of contractors, principal contractors and sub-contractors but, more important, we have gone on particular site visits and interviewed workforces at the sites.

The Deputy also mentioned the general frustration of the self-employed in the construction sector. The other area we have looked at and continue to look at is one off builds. The vast majority of construction these days, 75%, is one off builds. We have conducted significant site visits to one-off builds and come across incidents of social welfare fraud and tax non-compliance. However, one of the difficulties is that many times we are confronted with the dilemma that the person has just started that day. It is surprising the number of times we come across that response. Nevertheless, to give a flavour of the measures we take, we visited one construction project across a certain number of centres last year. We measure success or otherwise by looking at the number of cases or the number of people interviewed on site, of which there were 827. This was just one operation. The number of detections was 105, which represents 13%. We review the projects visited in terms of the return or the incidence that has been detected. In that project the value of savings in terms of payments being suspended or the person leaving was in the region of €900,000. We look at the project and try to measure it in terms of the outcome of the activity between ourselves and Revenue. Have I addressed all the issues?

Deputy Tom Fleming

Is the Department working with the employers, the people who are affected by what is happening on the ground? I am sure they are well aware of the people involved.

Mr. Philip Cox

We are. That point was raised by Senator Quinn. We work with business, industry sources, employer groups and unions at a national and regional level. My colleagues and I would have had several meetings with people who are self employed and have reliable and credible intelligence to give us. We will engage with people once they have credible intelligence or a credible story to tell us because their businesses are being affected.

Ms Geraldine Gleeson

Deputy Kyne asked a few questions, the first of which was about our database.

I will explain the background to the database. The first early retirement scheme resulted in many experienced appeals officers retiring and there was a view that a lot of experience would walk out of the door. There was no central repository for their reports and that is why we established a database. It is up and working now and has been successful and it is where the training issue came from.

The oral hearing reports on the system are contemporaneous reports of what happened at the hearing and will often refer to other aspects of the file and evidence. In order to cleanse them for publication and make them anonymous one must add a lot more information than might otherwise be in the report. It is not straightforward and is not simply taking out a name. It takes a lot of work to make a file anonymous so that nobody, not even a family member, could recognise the case when we publish the reports in the annual report. It is a huge task given the numbers involved. We will examine the system that the Minister, Deputy Bruton, is putting in place and it will be interesting. This year I intend to put another 100 cases on the website but they will not cover all of the schemes. We will target contentious matters that we get a lot of queries on and which people may need to know about such as domiciliary care allowance appeals and decisions on the habitual residence condition.

With regard to retired officers, they worked with us from June 2010 until the end of last year and are now gone. Of course these experienced officers had an impact. Last April we recruited nine new appeals officers to be geared up and in place by the time the retired people left. We are in that situation now and hope that there will be no fall-off.

I was asked about the new model that we piloted in 2010. It was extended to one third of our officers last October, to another third in January 2012 and the last third will receive it in April. I will explain the new model briefly. In the past an appeals officer would take a certain amount of files, vet them and he or she made a summary decision, if possible, but if not the files went back into a queue for oral hearing and any officer could get them. With the new model an officer gets a certain amount of files. If it is possible he or she will make a decision on them but if not he or she takes them to oral hearing. We had 8,000 oral hearings last year and if we have the same number this year there will be a saving because only one officer will examine the files instead of two. There are a lot of synergies and efficiencies to be gained from the new model.

Deputy Fleming talked about freeing up the system and preventing log jams and I agree with him. I hope that I got across to members a flavour of some of the things that we are doing to solve the problem. We are constantly working on it and we will continue to be innovative. We will try to re-organise and make ourselves more efficient and we will work with the Department, in particular.

The medical service and people not being seen was mentioned. Obviously I cannot talk for the service but I know that it has expert medical advice, it neither advises nor treats people and works on the information on file. We have a chief medical adviser called Dr. Clement Leech who might speak on the issue here on another occasion.

Deputy Collins talked about carers' appeals. Like all of the other delegations we accept that there are unacceptable delays and people have suffered. In January the number of weeks one had to wait for a carers' appeal was reduced from higher than 50 weeks down to a wait of 40 weeks for an oral hearing and 29 weeks for a summary. The waiting periods are still unacceptably long. Earlier I made the point that they will always be of a certain duration even in the best of times. We will continue to improve and be innovative when trying to reduce the processing times further.

Ms Kathleen Stack

I should like to pick up on a couple of points made by Deputy Collins on prosecutions and anonymous telephone calls. We prosecute between 2% and 3% of fraudulent cases and they tend to be of high value. It would not be practical or cost efficient for us to prosecute a larger number of cases. In 2010 the cases finalised and that we took to court involved welfare overpayments in excess of €6,500, while the average overpayment was about €1,600. As I said, the cases tend to be of higher value.

Earlier I mentioned that almost 17,000 anonymous telephone calls were received last year. I want to make it clear that a payment is not suspended or stopped on the basis of an anonymous telephone call but it can trigger an investigation. For example, one about someone working and signing on or that their means are higher than they had told us can trigger a further investigation. The Deputy has tabled parliamentary questions outlining the penalty for bogus callers. It is a balancing act to get people to use the facility and they feel more comfortable using it anonymously. My view is that asking the callers for names and PPS numbers would work against us but perhaps we can examine it.

Senator Michael Mullins

I wish to follow Senator Kelly's comment earlier about the long-term illness benefit. Are they reviewed or do people receive the benefit for life?

I support Deputy Fleming's comments on the black economy. We have all been told by a small operator, the man or woman who does the plumbing or painting, that he or she cannot compete because people on the dole undercut their rates. It is a real problem. We need to put pressure on those individuals to register legitimately and compete rather than prosecute them. Have we enough people to police the issue?

Why has it taken so long to bring the social welfare identity card onstream? It is a no-brainer and we should have had it in place for the past ten years. Earlier Deputy Kyne told a good story but I have an even better one. A couple of years ago a registrar of births told me, in my town of Ballinasloe, that following the registration of a birth 14 different individuals applied to her for a copy of the birth certificate and some of them lived outside of the jurisdiction. I reckon that they did not want to frame it or have it for sentimental reasons and she was wise enough not to hand it out. If somebody was less vigilant, unaware of the potential scam and handed out several copies the State could be paying multiple children's allowance for the same person. Will the new card cater for every citizen, irrespective of age? We need to put all of our energies into bringing the project to fruition to stamp out some of the scams.

We need to use our imagination and make it easier for people to make the transition from social welfare to work and from work to social welfare. People offered short term irregular work will not take it because it is too cumbersome for them to resume signing on and they will lose benefits.

We should also examine the aggregation of hours as distinct from the number of days that people work. A person can sign on if they work all of their hours in one or two days. However, if they work for two hours a day for five days they are barred from signing on. The system is unequal and unfair.

I agree that the waiting period for carers' appeals is too long. Unfortunately, I had a rather sad situation where a case I pursued for a number of months was no longer required because the person had passed away. That is happening a lot and the appeals take far too long to be resolved.

Vice Chairman

I have a few quick questions. Recently there has been a lot of comment on the 17,000 anonymous complaints. Can the delegation give a basic breakdown on the type of complaints? Has the nature of complaints changed over the past number of years? Is there a need for an information campaign on what foreign nationals are entitled to? The amount of misinformation on what people assume foreign nationals are entitled to is outrageous. The amount of misinformation on foreign nationals' entitlements is absolutely outrageous. This is leading to some very unfortunate commentary and suspicion.

Senator Mullins touched on the move from welfare to work. In this regard, let me refer to the poverty trap of social welfare, the cage that protects but does not set one free. How can we make it easier for people to move from welfare to work? Some 93,000 casual part-time workers in receipt of the jobseeker's allowance want to work full-time but perhaps do not understand or have the necessary information on the entitlements they would retain if they did so. Could the delegates comment on that?

Mr. David Dillon

Not all of the 83,000 are in the poverty trap, by any means.

Vice Chairman

I am not saying they are.

Mr. David Dillon

The issue associated with the poverty trap revolves around the issue of replacement rates. The vast majority on the live register would be better off working at the national minimum wage. On two thirds of the average industrial wage, they would be better off again. On the average industrial wage, they would be significantly better off in most cases. There are a few outliers, which we discussed in September because that was the topic of the presentation. I refer to those in receipt of rent allowance and those with larger families. Family income supplement kicks in when one works above a certain number of hours, and that addresses, for some but not all people, many of the poverty trap issues that arise. We recognise that probably fewer than 5% on the live register face significant issues in regard to the poverty trap. Others face the issue of hours versus days, which is trapping people. We are seeking to address that in the implementation of the review we discussed earlier.

With regard to income maintenance and social protection, there will always be a balance to be struck between retaining the incentive to work through having a certain level of social welfare that one does not exceed and recognising poverty through poverty measures and thresholds, including the 60% threshold.

The financial incentive is not the only issue that arises for those who face the poverty trap because issues arise over education, skills, training, etc. If they were addressed, it would allow people to enter the workforce and progress upwards.

Ms Kathleen Stack

Let me refer to a few points made by Senator Michael Mullins. The public services card is a top priority for the Department. We are determined and very keen to roll it out as quickly as possible. There are approximately 6,200 cards at present. The roll-out is a priory for us in 2012. We will be taking on some temporary staff to assist us in the process and we are taking it very seriously.

On the long-term illness benefits, I understand there is a review date for each of the schemes, but I will have to double-check. I am not 100% sure but I can revert to the committee if Ms Geraldine Gleeson does not know the answer.

Ms Geraldine Gleeson

People on DCA get a review date if improvement is likely; otherwise there is an instruction not to refer again. On DA, there is a policy to review on an ongoing basis.

Ms Kathleen Stack

I can check the details for Senator Michael Mullins.

We have been very conscious of the transition from social welfare to work and we have circulated a lot of information. We now have a system in place whereby one's claim is suspended temporarily rather than fully such that if one is out of payment for one, two, three or four weeks, one is put back into payment very quickly again on one's return. A number of Deputies and Senators told us this was an issue and we are conscious of it. The period is four weeks for work and eight for a training course. At the end of the process, one is put back into payment very quickly.

We are considering the days versus hours issue. My colleague Mr. Dillon mentioned this in connection with the 2007 report mentioned by Deputy Lawlor. We are conscious of this issue in terms of facilitating the shift from part-time to full-time employment.

I do not have to hand details on complaints.

Mr. Philip Cox

I can provide the breakdown. There were 16,917 received in 2011, the bulk of which, amounting to 7,430, were allegations that people were working while claiming benefits. There were 4,400 alleging there should not have been a payment because of cohabitation. A total of 876 were related to people who were claiming benefits although they were meant to be outside the jurisdiction. Four hundred and ninety-one cases pertained to employers and there was a miscellaneous category comprising 3,646 complaints.

In many respects, the complaints may be triggers for investigation. In the context of the full review and the level and amount of reviewing the Department does, they form a small percentage of the overall figure. Much of the work we do, particularly in the joint investigation units and through special investigations, is led by us based on the intelligence we have. It is important to state a balance must be struck regarding any report received. While reporting acknowledges that the public is consistently more aware of the fact that it can provide the Department with information, the reports are just triggers. They must be credible and it is not a question of simply presenting one.

Vice Chairman

Are there any suggestions that more complaints are proving to have merit now than in the past?

Ms Kathleen Stack

Of the 17,000, 13,000 were referred for further investigation. Some 4,000 were not referred because people were not in payment or because we did not have enough details.

Vice Chairman

Is that a higher percentage than that which obtained in previous years?

Ms Kathleen Stack

I do not have the figure.

Mr. Philip Cox

Is the percentage the same as in years when there may have been only a few hundred complaints?

Ms Kathleen Stack

I do not know. We can check that for the Vice Chairman.

The other issue which was raised concerned foreign nationals' entitlements. We can consider this. I do not know whether it has been raised with us as an issue to date but we can certainly consider it.

Vice Chairman

Okay. There seems to be a lot of misinformation.

Deputy Anthony Lawlor

Mr. Dillon stated one reason for the delay in implementing the report from 2007 was the comments from the social partners. Can we have copies of those comments?

Mr. David Dillon

Yes; they date from 2007.

Deputy Anthony Lawlor

I have met a number of the social partners. Others have not responded to me at all. Could the comments be supplied to me in the next week?

Mr. David Dillon

Yes.

Vice Chairman

I thank the witnesses for attending, for being so frank and giving us such valuable information. I appreciate it. I thank Ms Stack and Ms Gleeson in particular for making the presentations.

The joint committee adjourned at 11.20 a.m. until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 28 March 2012.