I welcome the Minister for Social and Family Affairs, Deputy Cullen, and his officials. As it is his first time to come before the committee, I wish the Minister well and hope members of the committee will work with him in a true spirit of mutual co-operation. The social and family affairs portfolio covers aspects of Government policy that profoundly affect many individuals and families in society. I am sure we can work together productively and efficiently to address issues of importance and, therefore, help to improve the quality of life of many. I invite the Minster to brief the committee on issues surrounding social welfare fraud and the habitual residency condition, following which members may ask questions.
Social Welfare Fraud and Habitual Residency Condition: Discussion with Minister for Social and Family Affairs.
I thank the Chairman for his welcome. I am happy to come before this important committee.
The work of my Department impacts on almost every person in the State. The Department administers some 50 schemes and services with more than 1.5 millioncustomers benefiting from weekly payments and more than 570,000families receiving child benefit in respect of almost 1.1 millionchildren each month. Expenditure in 2007 was in the region of €15.3 billion. Estimated expenditure for this year is just under €17 billion.Given this level of expenditure, any incidence of fraud and error, however small, could result in a significant loss to the social insurance fund, from which benefits are paid, and the Exchequer which funds social assistance payments. Consequently, my officials and I are particularly concerned to ensure fraudulent and other irregular payments are kept to the absolute minimum.
The prevention of fraud and abuse of the social welfare system is an integral part of the day-to-day work of my Department. A key objective of the Department's control strategy is to ensure we pay the right person the right amount of money at the right time. A four-pronged approach has been adopted to meet this objective as follows: prevention -having systems and procedures in place to prevent and minimise the risk of fraud and error at the initial claim stage; detection - detecting fraud, abuse and error at the earliest possible stage through targeted reviews of claims in payment and detecting unpaid PRSI contributions by employers and the self-employed; deterrence -dealing decisively with cases of fraud when detected; and debt recovery -actively pursuing the recovery of all debts.
Systematic risk analysis is a key element of the Department's control strategy. This entails the identification, by scheme managers, of areas of high risk of fraud and abuse in the schemes for which they are responsible and putting in place appropriate measures to address them in a systematic way. This enables us to focus review activity on areas of high risk, thereby ensuring resources are targeted in the most effective manner.
Another important element in tackling fraud has been the introduction of a fraud and error survey programme which is used to establish baseline fraud and error levels for individual schemes and assist in the identification of the types of claims which should be prioritised for review purposes. The Department is committed to undertaking two such surveys each year.
More than 600 staff at local, regional and national level are engaged on a full or part-time basis in work related to the control of fraud and abuse of the social welfare system. Controls are exercised at the initial claim stage and subsequent stages during the claim life cycle, with claims being reviewed on a regular and targeted basis. Some 345,000reviews were undertaken in 2007, including 70,000recipients of job seeker payments, 43,000lone parents and 16,000recipients of child benefit. A further 126,000 reviewswere undertaken by the Department’s medical referees. In addition, some 4,700employer inspections were carried out by social welfare inspectors.
Prosecutions are an important tool in deterring social welfare fraud. During 2007, 361 cases were referred to the Chief State Solicitor's office for prosecution and 243 cases were finalised in court. In addition, 26 cases of personation were referred in 2007 by social welfare inspectors to the Garda for follow-up investigation and possible prosecution. These cases included people cashing a payment belonging to another person and people working under someone else's personal public service number.
The Department's programme for 2008 provides for some 463,000 reviews to be undertaken, including 123,000 medical reviews, 105,000 job seeker recipients, 100,000 child benefit recipients and 45,000 recipients of one-parent family payment. Having regard to our ongoing assessment of risks, areas on which a particular focus is being placed this year include: one-parent family payment in the context of the ongoing localisation of the scheme from social welfare services in Sligo to our network of local and branch offices; non-Irish nationals in receipt of child benefit whose children reside abroad will be required to certify every three months that they continue to be employed in this country and other non-Irish nationals will be required to certify twice annually that they and their children continue to reside here; the undertaking of a life certification project on the 14% of recipients of contributory State pension who reside abroad; the undertaking of reviews of contributory pensioners in receipt of an increase for a qualified adult where the spouse or partner has earnings from employment; and the undertaking of residency checks on non-Irish nationals in receipt of unemployment payments.
A requirement to be habitually resident in Ireland was first introduced as a qualifying condition for receipt of certain social welfare payments with effect from 1 May 2004. The habitual residence condition was introduced in the context of the Government's decision to open the Irish labour market to workers from the ten new EU member states without the transitional limitations imposed at that time by most other member states. The condition means that persons who have not worked in Ireland or who have little or no connection to this country cannot avail of assistance schemes or child benefit. In particular, a person who has not obtained permission to work here and who does not have the means to be fully self-supporting will not satisfy the habitual residence condition. The condition does not apply to insurance benefits which are payable to persons who satisfy the contribution and other conditions. A person, regardless of nationality, who has spent most or all of his or her life in Ireland will normally satisfy the habitual residence condition. People who have lived in other parts of the common travel area, for example, Northern Ireland, and then move with the intention of settling here are also likely to satisfy the habitual residence condition. Migrant workers from other countries who have genuinely made Ireland their permanent home will also satisfy the habitual residence condition for receipt of social assistance payments and child benefit.
To satisfy the habitual residence condition a person must demonstrate more than mere physical presence. Essentially, he or she must have a stable association with the country from which payment is claimed. The European Court of Justice has determined that the following five factors are relevant in determining whether a person is habitually resident, as follows: an applicant's main centre of interest; length and continuity of residence in a particular country; length and purpose of absence from a country; nature and pattern of employment in a country; and future intention of the applicant concerned as it appears from all the circumstances. These factors were included in Irish social welfare legislation in 2007. No single factor is conclusive; the circumstances of each case will dictate what information is needed and the weight that will be given to each factor in assessing the habitual residence condition.
Decisions to the effect that applicants satisfy the habitual residence condition are made in more than 90% of cases at claim acceptance stage on the basis of answers given on the primary claim forms. The remaining small numbers of complex cases are examined in more detail within a central HRC unit in the Department's offices at Townsend Street, Dublin, or within the scheme area. A person who fails to satisfy the habitual residence condition and is suffering financial hardship may apply to the Health Service Executive for an exceptional needs payment under the supplementary welfare allowance scheme. Such payments are not subject to the habitual residence condition. Non-nationals who do not have any means of support may also be assisted by the Reception and Integration Agency to travel back to their home countries.
During the period from 1 May 2004 to 31 December 2007 the overall total number of complex claims which required such detailed examination was almost 65,000 made by persons from more than 150 countries. Overall, 75% of the claims involving complex HRC issues were allowed. Disallowances amounted to 25% of the total decided, and of those disallowed the majority, 73%, were in relation to jobseeker's allowance claims. The operation of the condition was reviewed by the Department in 2006, and the report of the review was published in early 2007. The full content of the review may be accessed on the Department's website www.welfare.ie. Following the review, the operational guidelines for the scheme are currently being revised to ensure consistency in the application of the condition and to take account of the variety of situations which can arise.
EU Regulation 1408/71 which deals with social security benefits for migrant workers requires that all EU nationals are treated in the same way as Irish nationals. Family benefits including one-parent family payments, family income supplement, guardian's payment — non-contributory, and child benefit are covered by this regulation. Furthermore, child benefit is payable by the country in which the worker is employed, regardless of where the children reside. On this basis Irish child benefit is payable to EU nationals working in Ireland whose children are living elsewhere. In December 2004 the EU Commission raised several issues concerning the compliance of HRC with EU law on workers and their families. Following a full examination of the matter, the Commission was satisfied that Ireland complies fully with the European Court of Justice case law in this respect and terminated the infringement proceedings in April 2006.
The position of Irish missionaries has been raised by several people. As with all applicants for the schemes covered by HRC, they have to satisfy the residency condition and an exception cannot be made in favour of any group or nationality. Missionaries coming back to Ireland on a permanent basis, for example, to retire, qualify for a State non-contributory pension on the grounds that their centre of interest is now here. For the period from 1 May 2004 to 31 December 2007, the number of claims with complex HRC issues decided in respect of Irish citizens was some 16,000,of which almost 1,700 or 10% were disallowed. National legislation cannot provide advantages to non-resident Irish nationals taking up temporary visits here without extending the provisions to all EU nationals under the same conditions. A number of returning Irish nationals have been impacted by this condition. However, it must be emphasised that Irish nationals returning to live here on a permanent basis should experience no difficulty in demonstrating that they satisfy the requirements of the habitual residence condition.
A person who is still in the asylum process has not yet received permission to reside in Ireland, and therefore cannot be considered to be resident let alone habitually resident here. For this reason, persons within the asylum seeking process do not qualify for child benefit. The welfare and rights of asylum seekers and their families are addressed by the direct provision supports which are the responsibility of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, not the Department of Social and Family Affairs. Where refugee status or right-to-remain status is granted to such persons, they are accepted as being habitually resident and they therefore are then entitled to child benefit in respect of their qualifying children.
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. In this regard the control programme of my Department is carefully monitored and the various measures are continuously refined to ensure that they remain effective.
I welcome the Minister, the Secretary General and other officials from the Department. I thank the Minister for outlining some of the details regarding fraud. In general, we are dealing with three types of fraud. One is internal fraud, where Irish citizens obtain payments to which they are not entitled. Second, there is cross-Border fraud — there was confusion between the Minister and me on a question in this regard — between Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Third, there is cross-Border fraud on a grander scale where people come to this country claiming payments. There have been a number of examples of that in recent months, including one in the Minister's constituency, where people fly in and out of here to countries in the EU. There have also been several examples cited in the newspapers involving other foreign nationals. In many instances they were Nigerian but I do not wish to specify nationalities because it can involve people of any nationality.
Has the Minister any statistics for each group? What prosecutions have taken place in that regard? I presume the Government Information Services follow the newspaper reports. Are the individual claims investigated by the Department? The Minister told me in reply to a parliamentary question that two social welfare inspectors, in July 2004 and August 2006, were assigned to the Garda National Immigration Bureau. Does the Minister consider that sufficient to deal with the scale of the difficulty? According to a reply to another parliamentary question, there were 600 cross-Border social welfare cases involving Ireland, Great Britain and Northern Ireland in 2005 and the saving as a result was approximately €3.5 million. There were similar figures for 2006. That is a large number of cases investigated yielding a relatively small saving. Contrast that with the figures the Minister gave for fraud by Irish citizens. Is the Minister satisfied with the scale of investigation and the results? Does he have an idea as to how big the problem is compared with what the Department can tackle? Obviously, we get much anecdotal information from constituents and other colleagues as to the scale of fraud.
On that issue, the Minister said there are 600 full-time and part-time staff. How many are full-time and how many are part-time? Obviously, part-time can be anything from an hour to 37 hours a week. There is the issue of security at airports and ports. This is mainly an issue for the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, but the cost of the fraud is carried by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. What level of security is there at the airports and ports? I am aware there are difficulties due to EU agreements and so forth but it is an issue on which we must be more strict, from a social welfare perspective.
I will discuss the habitual residency condition. My colleagues will deal with other matters such as carers, returning emigrants and so forth but I will concentrate on children and child benefit. We have debated this with the Minister on a number of occasions and I am not sure we will succeed in changing his mind. I will be brief because we discussed this with the Minister's officials two weeks ago. The Minister admitted that the original purpose of introducing the habitual residency condition was to deal with migrants from the accession countries and the fear that they would come here as welfare tourists. However, it appears that only a tiny percentage of EU workers have claimed benefits at all, let alone abused the system. In that sense, the scheme is not dealing with the group of people for whom it was considered necessary.
The Minister is aware of the effects of this condition on children and families. Asylum seekers' and migrant workers' children are affected. People are waiting for considerable periods of time, in some cases up to five years, in the centres for approval or dismissal of their claims. I accept it is the responsibility of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform but there is also collective Cabinet responsibility. These people are being punished by a system that is not efficient enough to deal with whether they are entitled to stay or should be returned to their home countries. The issue is how we treat those children while they are here. I will not go into the detail again of what they cannot afford because everybody appreciates that these families cannot even get basic items. I accept that they are getting bed and board in the centres. There are no other circumstances in the social welfare system in which child benefit is withdrawn from families. This is the only example within the system. We are talking about a relatively small number of children estimated by many groups, including the free legal advice centres which made the presentation, to be approximately 3,000. I ask the Minister to examine this matter, not only from the viewpoint of migration policy but also from the perspective of child policy. We asked his officials a number of questions about the issue, but I did not receive a satisfactory answer to one of my questions on waiting times for those claiming child benefit. In 2006 the chief appeals officer expressed concern about the adequacy of the safeguards adopted by the Department to ensure consistency. I know that a review has been undertaken since and that the guidelines are being revised as a result. When will that revision be completed and when can we expect to see such change?
On the last occasion members of the committee and the representatives who made presentations cited various examples of inconsistencies in the decision making process. The Department's answer was that it dealt with hundreds of thousands of claimants each year and that the number involved represented a tiny minority. However, the point is that if a person is included in that minority, it does not matter that 600,000 other claims are dealt with successfully. The officials did not say how they were going to deal with such inconsistencies. That is one of the concerns, regardless of whether the HRC is being applied. Two weeks ago another official, Mr. Baldrick, mentioned delays and that he was dealing with appeals lodged in July 2007. That represents a delay of eight months, which is unacceptable.
The Minister and his officials are hiding behind words. I posed questions concerning the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the advice I received was that because the habitual residency condition applied to Irish and non-Irish nationals without distinction, it conformed with the convention. However, if that was tested in the courts, it would be found that while technically it applied to Irish and non-Irish nationals, those affected by the habitual residency condition were asylum seekers and the children of migrant workers, not Irish children. On that basis, it does not conform with the convention.
Regarding asylum seekers, the reply also indicated that where direct provision was used rather than a cash payment, there was freedom within the UN convention to cover the issue. However, I disagree, especially as no other persons in receipt of child benefit have been affected by this provision. While I can guess the answer he might give, I ask the Minister to examine this matter from a moral viewpoint for the benefit of the children affected.
None of the Minister's officials was in a position to comment on how this issue affected the children's strategy, presumely because it was Government rather than departmental policy. The point made in the strategy is clear — that we should look at matters from the viewpoint of a child's welfare. The habitual residency condition does not do this.
Before calling Deputy Shortall, I appeal to members not to make such long contributions because of the number of speakers indicating.
I welcome the Minister, the Secretary General and other staff. I commend the Department on its level of activity and impressive performance in recent years. The Revenue Commissioners could certainly take a leaf out of the Department's book in this regard. The Department's approach contrasts strongly with that of the Revenue Commissioners. Some 243 cases were before the courts last year, a significantly high number, whereas the number taken by the Revenue Commissioners was tiny by comparison.
Why has the Minister made no reference to rent allowance in discussing fraud? The Committee of Public Accounts recently heard reports from the Comptroller and Auditor General on the poor performance of the Department of Social and Family Affairs in providing the Revenue Commissioners with details of PPS numbers of landlords in receipt of State moneys through rent allowance. It was said PPS numbers could not be traced for well over half the landlords in receipt of rent allowance. There seemed to be a significant communications problem between the Department and the Revenue Commissioners when it came to passing on important information in order that the commissioners could, in turn, trace the income in dealing with landlords' tax liabilities. The Minister should certainly have covered this area if he was to give a full report on fraud. I would be interested to know if he has any information on that aspect.
As regards the application of the habitual residency condition to Irish citizens, we have been supplied with a note on the legal advice the Department received. However, I am not convinced that it explains the application of the HRC to Irish citizens. Irrespective of what the EU might state, does the Minister have a view on whether it is fair to exclude Irish citizens from entitlement to social welfare support on returning to Ireland? It strikes me that EU anti-discrimination legislation is being used as cover for not providing social support for returning Irish emigrants. What is the Minister's view? Is he saying it is unfortunate that this legislation prevents us from making such payments or that we should be able to provide payments for Irish people coming back to live here?
We do.
The Minister refused such payments in a number of cases brought to our attention by agencies working in this area. There seems to be a significant problem with the lack of consistency in applying the rules. It seems the Minister has devolved responsibility for decision-making to officers all around the country, but there is little consistency in the application of the rules. This is a source of concern for the agencies involved in dealing with persons who have received a negative response from the Department. Since there is no consistency, the agencies are not in a position to give clear advice to Irish people living abroad who are considering moving back. They state the HRC will be applied and that such persons may or may not be denied a payment.
There is also a lack of consistency across payments. It has been brought to our attention that Irish people returning here may have their claims for child benefit upheld, for example, but a few months later a claim for rent allowance may be refused on the basis of the HRC.
There is a means test. There are different tests.
I am not talking about the means test, but about the application of the HRC, which is inconsistent. One would expect that if a person was deemed to be HRC compliant for one payment, he or she would be deemed compliant for all social welfare payments. What steps is the Minister taking in that regard? Agencies working with people who are considering coming back are asking for a guarantee of consistency as well as transparency with regard to qualifying under the HRC in order that they can give clear advice to those considering returning from the United States, the United Kingdom or elsewhere. In addition to the five criteria applied by the Department, the agencies want the Minister to consider another criterion — a person's place of birth which ensures a significant link to the country. It is important to distinguish between nationality and citizenship.
I understand the sentiment and agree with it but I simply cannot do it. Under EU law, one cannot differentiate at all. It is black and white; there is not even a grey area. It is an issue at which I looked and we have discussed it. There is no ability whatsoever to differentiate on this issue. It applies to Irish people abroad as much as it applies to people coming home. One must treat all EU citizens in the same way, irrespective of their place of birth. One cannot have a birth test per se.
That is not clear from the note we got from the Minister's officials. It would be easy to come to the conclusion that the Minister is hiding behind this.
I would like to do it but I cannot.
To what extent has the Minister examined and tested this, bearing in mind the difference between nationality and citizenship? It is perfectly reasonable if a person spent the first ten years of his or her life here, for example, if he or she was born and grew up in County Mayo, and has been abroad for economic reasons. We are talking often about a group of people who in some cases were run out of this country, for example, as a result of unemployment or if they grew up in an institution. They may have found it very difficult to continue to live in Ireland and more or less were forced to move abroad. They are in their latter years now and want to come back to Ireland.
There is no problem.
There is no guarantee those people will be entitled to a social assistance payment.
There is an absolute guarantee. Once they move back to Ireland and establish residency, there is no issue whatsoever.
That is fine. Organisations, such as Crosscare and FLAC, which deal with these individuals say there is a lack of consistency in decision making. They have said that in a situation such as this, there should be a guarantee that a person born in Ireland—
For the Deputy's information, we have consistently asked FLAC to provide us with the case evidence of this but it has failed to provide us with one case.
It provided cases to us the last day it was here.
I make that point to the Deputy because it is absolutely straightforward. There is no mystery. If one comes back to Ireland or if one lives here, one is entitled. There is no grey area. It is crystal clear and the figures indicate that. We are debating an issue which is not a real or major one. Issues arise where people come back for a few months but have no intention of staying here. They might come back for a particular reason. There are people who come home to Ireland for Christmas who want to sign on for job seeker's allowance. That cannot be allowed. If Irish citizens come back to live in Ireland, there is no issue. I mean that sincerely.
These organisations, which work with these people, have said there are problems.
If they give us the evidence, we certainly will look into it.
I am sure they will produce cases because they are unlikely to be making it up. They have said there is no consistency in the decision making by various officers of the Minister's Department. People applying to come back to Ireland and receive a social assistance payment must demonstrate that they have cut all links with the country they are leaving. That is a very big risk for a person to take if he or she has spent 40 or 50 years in the United States, for example. It should be possible to give a decision on his or her entitlement without him or her cutting all links. We also know that many of these people want to come back to live in Ireland but are not 100% certain it will work out. What is wrong with these people coming back to see how it goes for a year or two years?
There is no problem with that either.
Those people are being refused.
They are not. The Deputy is presenting anecdotal evidence to the committee. I accept the Deputy's bona fides because she, like me, hears all these anecdotal cases. If, for example, a person has a home in the United States, he or she returns to Ireland and it is clear his or her main centre of interest is in this country, we do not force them to sell their home in or cut their ties with America.
The interpretation of that phrase "main centre of interest"-----
The figures do not show this. I have given the Deputy the figures which do not demonstrate what she said. Some 16,000 cases of Irish people were reviewed and fewer than 10% were disallowed. There is an appeals mechanism. It was quite clear in those cases that people had no interest in coming back to Ireland, were not going to make Ireland their main residence and were in this country for a relatively short period.
I wish to clarify the point the Deputy made about the EU end of this, and I am not being at all argumentative. The EU took us to task on this. It investigated the HRC issue and how it is applied and found we are applying it correctly. The EU had concerns based on information that we were doing this incorrectly but it found that not to be the case and that the way this is being applied in Ireland is correct and fair.
I must call Deputy Joe Carey because I have given Deputy Shortall ample time. I ask members to ask questions and then I will take answers from the Minister. That is the way to run the show.
I have one more point to make. The Minister spoke for a long time. If I had been allowed to continue—
I have been very fair to everyone. Other members have indicated. I have given the Deputy more time than anyone.
I share the views expressed about Irish citizens coming home. It is very harsh. I ask the Minister to look at this again to see what can be done. Some 10% of returning Irish emigrants have been turned down.
The Deputy is wrong. That is not the case. I said that 10% of those who applied were not returning. That is the point. They were coming back for a short period. All Irish citizens who returned to Ireland to make it their centre of interest — it does not even have to be their centre of residence — are getting the payments. It is important this committee, the Dáil or the Seanad does not send out a message that we are not allowing Irish citizens coming back to Ireland to avail of the benefits. That is untrue and there is no evidence to suggest it is true.
On a point of order, it would be much more satisfactory for everyone concerned if members could ask questions and the Minister replied in order.
I apologise.
I have received information from Crosscare and the migrant workers project that since May 2004, 1,684 Irish people have been denied this payment.
That is correct.
What has the review shown? Are there typical reasons these problems have been encountered? Is the Minister putting a process in place to reduce the figureof 10%? How does he define the word "permanent"? Are there strict criteria? How does the Department implement that?
I did not mean to interrupt the Deputies. I was simply trying to have a more interactive discussion on the issue. I cannot differentiate on the habitual residence rule vis-à-vis Irish people and others, and the EU has found on this. That is out of the question. Everyone is treated in the same way. All returning Irish people who were born in this country or who are still citizens and who come back to Ireland get all the benefits. They are fully entitled to them. Obviously, some of them are means tested but they are entitled to all the benefits. No issues arise.
There are some people who have a connection to Ireland because they were born here but who have not lived here for a long time, who have come back for short periods and have sought to get these benefits. We simply cannot differentiate between them, on the basis that they are Irish, and other EU citizens coming here to seek the same benefits. Either one is living in Ireland or not. One's main centre of interest is Ireland or it is not. It is a simple straightforward test.
Deputy Shortall made the point of trying to add to the list a sixth question which related specifically to Irish citizenship, and clearly we cannot do that under EU law. This was tested by the EU. When we applied this, they undertook a detailed analysis of it. They examined it to see were we doing this correctly, and clearly we are. The evidence is that these issues arise in a small number of cases with which we must deal.
The review will be finished on 10 March. It is to bring all the different evidence together. As Deputy Shortall and others stated, one can continue to learn because peculiarities can arise in different cases. We are trying to be fair and flexible and we want there to be consistency.
One of the reasons an inconsistency has arisen, for example, between a person receiving child benefit and not the other elements is because having applied for one, the circumstances under which they apply in the second case have changed and the person may or may not be entitled. I agree in the following regard. I hope this is one finding that comes out of the review because it should be the case. If one is entitled to one, clearly one should be entitled to all of them. What was happening was that in the lag time or the gaps between applications for various benefits, a person's circumstances had changed to a much more positive situation than had existed in the first place.
Could the Minister give a specific figure? He stated it was a small figure. How many have been turned down?
I told the committee the figure was 1,700. I gave it in my speech.
The Minister stated earlier that what I stated was wrong.
No. The point is subtle but important. Deputy Carey stated that 1,700 Irish people returning to live in Ireland had been refused. I am stating that none has been refused on that basis. They are not returning to live here; that is the point.
In the whole clause itself, however—
It is an important point. Those who have been refused are people who have come back for a short period and who have had no intention of staying in this country, have had no connection with it and have not been making Ireland their centre of residence. They have come back for different reasons. Anyone who comes back to live in Ireland gets the benefits. It is that simple.
Could the Minister provide a specific breakdown of why these 1,700 people were turned down?
I do not have every case file in front of me but they did not fulfil the conditions. The main condition they did not fulfil was that they come back to make Ireland their centre of interest. They clearly did not do so and they understood that.
An analysis of 20 claims from Irish citizens for carer's allowance, for instance, which were disallowed on HRC grounds shows that one third of these claims were deemed to be withdrawn on the grounds that the claimants did not respond to the request for information. When we asked for the information, they gave up themselves. In each of the remainder of the claims, 14, it was decided the claimant was not habitually resident on the grounds that he or she was returning to Ireland temporarily and was retaining all his or her links with whatever was his or her country of residence. In other words, he or she was coming back only for a short period. That was a snapshot of 20 cases.
Deputies mentioned at the beginning that applications can take some time. That is a frustration, not just for me but also for the officials, because in many cases we cannot get the information from the applicants. One cannot process applications on partial information. Much of the time we are dependent on getting information on individuals from their own countries, either from the equivalent social welfare system or from the person concerned, and in some cases it takes an inordinate amount of time. If we do not have the facts and the evidence to process a claim, we cannot do so. Most cases of that kind are because the individual is not providing the information requested. I emphasise this is so in a very small number of cases in the context of the considerable total number of cases dealt with by the Department of Social and Family Affairs. The ability to deal with all these is excellent, which in fairness the Deputies have acknowledged. Controls and appeals mechanisms are in place and they must follow their course.
Deputy Shortall said I did not refer to the rent allowance issue, which is dealt with by the Health Service Executive. As she will be aware, a process is ongoing to bring community welfare officers back under the remit of the Department of Social and Family Affairs. That has been agreed in principle and those issues have been resolved. I hope that will bring about greater clarity, control and consistency across the system as we move forward.
Are the records of payments of rent allowance retained by the Department of Social and Family Affairs?
Deputy Shortall is correct. The supplementary welfare allowance records are in our systems.
I call Deputy Seymour Crawford.
On a point of clarification, in what way are we structuring this meeting? The Minister has replied to some questions and not to others, and now the Chairman is calling more members. I am quite happy for Deputy Crawford to be called but I want to be sure every question will be answered by the end.
I want to give every member a chance of asking a question.
There is no point in going through the motions on this matter. If there is an opportunity for us to ask questions, the Chairman must ask the Minister to give us the answers. Otherwise we are just wasting our time.
The Minister will give the answers at the end. The problem is the members are asking supplementary questions.
We are not.
We did not. In fairness, the Minister intervened.
There is no point in us being here if the Chairman will not allow for the questions to be answered.
The problem is that the Minister answered some of the questions in the process of the members asking them.
The Minister denied something there which was untrue and his Secretary General had to correct him. Would the Minister answer that question now?
What did the Deputy say?
In respect of rent allowance.
I stated that the records are held by the Department but that it is administered by the HSE.
Why has he not included fraud in that area when he is reporting on his performance on fraud?
In which area?
In the payment of rent allowance where landlords have failed to provide personal public service numbers.
That is the point. We do not pay landlords.
The Department keeps the records and it is his responsibility to give that information to Revenue.
Our responsibility in this area is simple. We deal with the individual client. We pay the individual client. There are issues, which Deputy Shortall identifies, with regard to individuals' responsibilities to Revenue but I cannot make the tax affairs of landlords the responsibility of individual social welfare recipients.
Under the legislation, however, the Minister is required to do so since last year. He is required to collect PPS numbers.
Yes. There are issues involved in that regard that must be resolved.
What is the problem? Obviously, it is a major area of fraud and the Minister has not reported on it here. Why can he not comply with the requirements under the Finance Act?
What is Deputy Shortall saying to me? She is stating that individual social welfare recipients, before they will sign up with a landlord, should demand and get the tax affairs of the landlord in order.
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that before his Department pays public money to landlords—
The Department does not pay money to landlords.
It does, to 13,000 landlords.
We make the individual payments to our individual clients.
The Department pays rent to 13,000 landlords.
Deputy Shortall, please allow the Minister to answer the question.
If, as a convenience, the individual wants the payment made directly to the landlord, we will do that on behalf of the client. It is important to understand this. We have nothing whatsoever per se to do with directly funding landlords in this country.
The Department makes cheques out to 13,000 landlords every month.
On behalf specifically of our clients.
The Department is not complying with the requirements under the Finance Act to provide those PPS numbers to Revenue.
We are, where we get the information.
The Department is required to get the PPS numbers, however.
Yes. I am not disputing the point.
It is something that should be covered under the heading of fraud.
Why? Has Deputy Shortall evidence or something to present to the committee here today? She cannot make sweeping statements that there is ongoing wholesale fraud in the rent allowance area and present no evidence to that effect.
Revenue has informed us that less than 50% of the landlords to which the Minister's Department makes payments provide their PPS numbers. The Department has not been able to put in place a system to ensure that this area is watertight.
Neither my Department nor its clients are responsible for the tax affairs of landlords. It is as simple as that.
The Taoiseach recently referred to the requirement on people to have tax clearance certificates. If public money is being paid by the Department to individual landlords, the least we should be able to expect is that it would insist on compliance with the law — as it is legally obliged to do — and that landlords should provide their PPS numbers.
They are obliged—
The Department is not doing that.
It is my understanding that if a landlord rents a house to a social welfare recipient, the onus rests on that landlord to supply the information to which the Deputy refers in his or her tax return on an annual basis.
That is what the Department of Social and Family Affairs—
Most landlords supply their PPS numbers to their tenants. That is my understanding of how the system operates.
Most landlords do not supply their PPS numbers.
I apologise for not being present for the Minister's initial contribution. I am interested in the subject of habitual residence. I dealt with one young lady involved in mission work abroad who was obliged to return home to care for her father who was extremely ill. She was married to a Korean man with whom she had one child but she could not obtain either children's allowance or carer's allowance because she could not guarantee that she would remain in the country indefinitely. The woman in question has remained here. She found herself in an immensely difficult position and enormous financial strain was placed on her family. The situation was particularly strange in light of the fact that the woman had worked here and paid tax prior to becoming involved in mission work.
Some of my constituents are of the view that they must travel across the Border to give birth because there is no hospital in Monaghan. The nearest hospital is located in Drogheda. Several of my constituents subsequently tried to claim children's allowance and their applications were delayed for long periods because they were obliged to prove that an entitlement exists in respect of their children, many of whom were born in Enniskillen. Difficulties arise because parents giving birth in Northern Ireland are obliged to provide an address and contact telephone number in that jurisdiction. I am familiar with the case of a woman in respect of whose first three children there were no problems. However, the position changed with her fourth child, who was born north of the Border in August last year. Her claim for children's allowance only came through last week. Difficulties of this nature should not arise.
The Minister referred to the children of asylum seekers. I have been involved in dealing with these children in Monaghan for some time. He should re-examine this matter because it is difficult to inform the parents of these children that it is not possible to claim any form of allowance in respect of them. The position is particularly strange given that parents from other countries who are working here but whose children remain in their home states can have children's allowance paid to them in those jurisdictions. A number of anomalies exist in that regard.
I have dealt with that issue to a large extent. The Deputy heard what I said. Unless the Deputy can provide all of the information relating to individual cases, I cannot comment. As I understand it, the parent of a child born in Northern Ireland need only produce a birth certificate when claiming and that is the end of the matter.
That is what my officials have indicated and I have no reason to disbelieve them.
I assure the Minister that some people have been obliged to wait years to obtain payment. That is not hearsay, there is evidence of which I am aware.
If the Deputy provides me with details after the meeting, I will be happy to investigate the case.
The Deputy should supply the information to the Minister.
I sent it to the Department long ago.
The Minister has indicated that he will investigate the case.
There are obviously particular circumstances surrounding the case to which the Deputy refers.
The Minister has replied to the queries put to him by the previous three speakers. However, he did not respond to the question I put to him. What is the exact nature of the system we are operating?
I was trying to identify which questions put by the Deputy to which I did not respond.
There are several. On the habitual residence condition as it relates to the children of asylum seekers—
The habitual residence condition does not apply in respect of asylum seekers. When they emerge from the asylum process—
They do not receive it.
They do not receive it because they are asylum seekers.
That is because of the policy the Minister has adopted.
That is not the case. The habitual residence condition is probably one of the most successful policies ever initiated here because it has protected our social system. If it was not in place, there would be an open door for people from across the globe — regardless of whether they had connections to this country or had made a contribution to it — to come to Ireland and claim every benefit that is available. That would be utterly wrong.
That was the reason it was introduced.
It was the reason we introduced it.
It was introduced because of the accession of ten new countries to the EU. It had nothing to do with people from elsewhere in the world wanting to come here.
Yes, but it is correct to say that it has proven to be extremely successful. Members are correct when they state that the numbers involved are very small. That is true because people outside Ireland know they cannot just come here and access all the benefits paid for by hard-working taxpayers and that are made available to the people of this country and those who come here who are legitimately entitled to claim such benefits. I will not change the system.
Members should understand that child benefit cannot be separated from the habitual residence condition. It is not possible to remove one allowance from the raft of such allowances included under the same category. We cannot be selective. We have applied them across the spectrum of areas to which I referred earlier. They are applied very fairly and the system is extremely fair. We are more than generous in the context of our social welfare obligations not only to Irish citizens but to those who come here from abroad and whose means are less sufficient than we might have hoped in the first instance.
These people are in a situation that is not of their own choosing and which has been created because the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform's system for dealing with asylum seekers is so inefficient. I accept that they are provided with food and accommodation. The Minister states that the system is very successful. Asking a child to live on €9 per week is not a measure of success.
Nobody is asking children to live on €9 per week.
It was stated at our previous meeting that when a child reaches the age of 12 months, he or she — regardless of whether he or she needs it — loses his or her entitlement to baby formula. If a child is one year and one day old and still needs baby formula, his or her parents are expected to pay the €7.95 cost per container out of an allowance of €9. Regardless of whether the child needs it, only one container of formula can be bought each week.
That is not the case.
The answer provided in respect of this matter at our previous meeting was that we should discuss it with the HSE. The Minister stated earlier that the people involved could apply to the relevant agency and that they would be flown out of the country if they could not live on the money provided. That is not any sort of decent or compassionate way to deal with these children. In the context of all our other strategies, we refer a great deal to child poverty. The reality is that the children to whom I refer are living in poverty. Does the Minister really believe it is possible to clothe a child and provide him or her with shoes on €9 per week? It is financially impossible. That is what the law is asking these people to do. An exceptional needs payment will not resolve the problem.
Direct provision is made. In addition, exceptional needs payments are made available to these people. It may be a policy position of Fine Gael that habitual residence conditions should not apply in respect of this country. If it is, the Deputy should spell it out that HRC should not apply in this country and that the children of the world should not come here and live off society. If that is what the Deputy is saying, she should say so.
No, it is not. The Minister should consider the issue from a child poverty perspective. I am entitled to make my party's policy clear.
No, the Deputy is continually interrupting.
The Minister asked me to specify Fine Gael policy.
The Minister is replying to the Deputy's questions and she is interrupting him.
He asked me to specify Fine Gael policy.
The conditions for asylum seekers were in place before the HRC rule was ever introduced. It was always the case and it is correct. We have been found by the European Court of Justice with regard to our application of direct provision to be more than fully meeting our international obligations to look after children. It is appalling for the Deputy to say we, as Irish people, are not treating the children of the world who have found themselves in this country fairly because that is not true.
I believe it is.
There is no evidence to suggest that is the case and it is wrong to make such a comment.
I referred to examples.
Irish people have proved and demonstrated at all levels to be the most generous.
I referred to child benefit only; it is wrong to have children living on €9 a week.
We are not asking them to.
I have accepted every time we have had this discussion that they are provided with food and accommodation but that is all; that is a problem for them. The Minister is not willing to budge on the issue.
One would think the Government was not spending almost €50 million every day on social welfare payments. This discussion is about tinkering with the system but significant funding is going into the social welfare system. One cannot argue with the overall thrust of policy.
Are we not supposed to ask questions?
That is not a question but the impression is being given that we are being cruel and heartless, which is not the case. A massive amount of cash—
We are highlighting individual cases.
I have dealt with cases of people who were refused under the HRC rule since I was elected. They did not provide the correct information in their applications and once I directed them on what they should send in, they were dealt with and their applications approved. The people concerned were genuinely returning home.
The Crosscare statement reads: "While some may view the numbers of Irish citizens refused supports as 'acceptable collateral damage'...". That is a disgraceful statement for a voluntary body to make in a submission to an Oireachtas committee when people who may disagree with it are described in this way. The submission should be withdrawn and a new document submitted. The organisation does fantastic work for immigrants but this is a policy discussion, not open warfare.
The Deputy is correct that all Members have dealt with individual cases, which I accept. However, my responsibility, as a member of the Government, is on behalf of all taxpayers and I must protect their interests by making sure payments are made fairly under specific criteria and we do. Many member states, particularly the Nordic countries, are not nearly as generous as we are or as open to immigrants. We should be very proud that in difficult circumstances we are as open and as fair as we are. However, as a society, we do not have unlimited resources and must be fair about how they are distributed.
I refer to carer's allowance. Under what legislation was it included in the list? It is not clear it was one of the original payments to be covered by the HRC. There are several cases every year of people returning from the United States or the United Kingdom to look after an elderly relative in their final years. It is clear that the person concerned does not intend to stay in Ireland indefinitely but it is necessary for him or her to come home while the relative is alive. Is it not fair that Irish citizens should expect support from the State in the form of carer's allowance if they do this? They do not meet the criteria set down in terms of the centre of interest because departmental officers generally require a person to state he or she will live in Ireland permanently to establish he or she has a centre of interest. However, is not looking after an elderly parent or relative for a year or two a centre of interest? Why should persons in such circumstances not be entitled to claim carer's allowance?
Will the Minister answer my earlier questions about fraud?
I am not heartless. I understand the issue raised by Deputy Shortall. Numbers of people have returned to Ireland to look after elderly relatives and my understanding is they are processed through the system where they return to live here. However, we cannot open it up and turn it into a family benefit payment, as the cost to the State would be incredible and we are not in a position to do so. Criteria are necessary to manage the process. I accept there are individual hard cases where people return to the State for a short period to mind a relative. However, it is presumed the State has the entire responsibility in such cases but it does not. Basic criteria that apply to everybody must be in place. I cannot differentiate between an Irish citizen and others under the criteria. That is absolutely clear and has been pronounced upon by the European Union in regard to how we manage payments. The criteria are in place to safeguard, within reason, the taxpayer in order that the floodgates do not open and an open house develops where people will return without any reason. It will be wide open to fraud. We will have sick people all over the place with people returning.
What is the extent of abuse of the carer's allowance scheme?
The scheme is tight and managed well. I do not have the information but, in discussions with my officials, I have not been given evidence of substantial fraud. That is because the system is well run and managed. However, we want to achieve more consistency.
Is there a risk of significant fraud? In circumstances where people return home to look after an elderly parent for a specified period, there is a way around this, if there is a will. For example, the Minister could introduce a residency requirement for the person being cared for if he believes it is right that Irish citizens returning home to look after their parents should be provided for by the State. Most members believe they should be.
I have repeated ad nauseam that I cannot differentiate under EU law and make special arrangements for our citizens. That was pronounced on legally and every other way.
Has the Minister sought to do this in respect of carer's allowance, where, for example, he could make a requirement relating to residency for the person being cared for?
I cannot pick out one area for HRC applications.
Has the Minister legal advice on the issue?
Yes. The European Commission and the European Court of Justice examined the issue because they wanted to make sure the Department was applying the rules correctly and fairly, that it was not being biased towards its own citizens and that there was a proper system in place open to everybody. They have looked at the legalities and pronounced upon it. They thought we were wrong, but found we were acting properly, in accordance with EU law and treating everybody equally and fairly under the system. Deputies Enright and Shortall referred to removing a section dealing with HRC. The habitual residence condition applies to a number of different areas. We cannot just extract one area and apply different rules to it. The rules must be consistently the same for all of it.
When was the carer's allowance included?
There were 195 carer's allowance cases disallowed on HRC grounds. Some 45 of those were Irish nationals and 150 were other nationals.
When was it included in the list?
From the outset.
Let me remind Deputy Shortall that the Minister is answering her question, but she has cut in without any reference to the Chair and continued asking supplementary questions. That will not be allowed. We will move on to Deputy Crawford to ask a final question.
Deputy Enright asked me how many of the 600 staff are full-time and part-time. It isapproximately half and half.
What about the airports?
We have two inspectors with the Garda. There is constant toing and froing between the Garda and if more inspectors are required, we will work with the Garda to arrange that. It seems to work well as it is.
Perhaps this is not an issue for the Minister, but what security is there with regard to his staff checking who is going in and out at airports and ports? Is it possible to do that under EU regulations?
That is not part of our responsibility.
Is there communication or what kind of communication occurs between the Department and the airport security?
Yes there is. Our inspectors work with them.
I want to make a final plea with regard to carer's allowance. I have come across hardship cases. We were informed by different Ministers over the years that the half-rate carer's allowance for a person on another social welfare allowance was illegal, but before the previous budget it was agreed suddenly that it could be allowed. There seems to be recognition from previous Ministers that the carers' issue is separate from others. I ask the Minister to take another look at that situation.
Does the Deputy mean with regard to the HRC?
I am interested to see the terms of the review process regarding new guidelines, which will be completed on 10 March. We will be as flexible as we can. The staff have been flexible. In 99% of cases there seems to be little issue with a person returning to Ireland. In 100% of cases of Irish citizens returning to stay in Ireland there is no issue, but there are grey areas with regard to others. I would like to see whether there is evidence emerging of people coming back for a number of years to look after a person as opposed to someone coming back for a few weeks to discover the position in this country.
We must be careful always because there will be exceptions. We all come across exceptional cases in our local areas. There are always difficult cases to be managed. Given the scale of resources, moneys and funding paid, however, the system by and large operates very well across the spectrum. We will keep examining the system, in human resource and information technology terms and other ways to ensure it runs as efficiently and fairly as possible.
We must end this session. I thank the Minister and his officials for coming to the committee and engaging in such an interesting and timely debate on these important national issues. I thank him especially for digging deeply and answering all the questions put to him.
I thank the Chairman.