At the outset of my speech I would like to outline briefly the main items which are provided for in this Bill. Essentially there are three main elements in the Bill, measures to counteract employer fraud and abuse; changes in contribution conditions and entitlement and trade dispute provisions.
First, the Bill will extend and improve in a significant way the powers to pursue employers who themselves are abusing the system or are colluding in social welfare abuse by their employees. We have made significant progress in tackling abuse this year and the new powers I am seeking will close loopholes in the existing legislation. Sections 2 to 7 of the Bill contain these measures.
Secondly, the Bill gives effect to measures which were announced at the time of publication of the 1988 Estimates. These mainly involve adjustments in the conditions for payments for long term disability and in the old maternity allowance scheme. They also include an improvement for disabled old age pensioners in exempting the mobility allowance from the means test. These measures are contained in sections 8 to 11 of the Bill, the second part of section 16 and in section 18.
Thirdly, the Bill amends the existing conditions for entitlement to unemployment payments during trade disputes to provide that persons who may only be marginally involved in a trade dispute will not be disqualified for unemployment payments. In future only persons who are actually participating in or are directly interested in the dispute will be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit or assistance. The Bill improves the legislation underlying the Social Welfare Tribunal which I set up in 1981 to deal with certain cases where workers may have been, through no fault of their own, caught up in a trade dispute situation and disqualified from benefit and the employer has failed to observe the correct procedures. The proposed amendment will give the tribunal the power, which it does not have at present, to review a decision in the light of new facts or evidence, if it considers this is warranted. These provisions are included in sections 13 and 14.
The remaining sections of the Bill contain a number of provisions designed to rationalise and improve other aspects of the social welfare system.
I would like to say a few words about each of the three main aspects of the Bill. At the outset I want to say something about the very important and topical issue of social welfare fraud and abuse.
The total expenditure in the social welfare area in the current year is over £2.6 billion, the equivalent of £7 million for each day of the year. Each month, almost three million payment transactions are made. The number of persons in receipt of unemployment payments each week is in the region of 230,000, 73,000 persons receive disability benefit payments, 238,000 persons receive old age or retirement pensions and almost 100,000 receive widow's pensions.
There is a clear need for effective control measures in the social welfare area because of the massive amount of State funds that are involved. At the same time it must equally be recognised that control measures must not be at the expense of speedy processing of claims and we must avoid any question of harassment of clients. There are hundreds of thousands of claimants who are in real and genuine need of the services provided by the Department and who have a statutory entitlement to those services. A balance must be kept between providing those families with a speedy, efficient, courteous and accessible service and ensuring that the service is not open to abuse. The balance must be constantly adjusted in the light of changing needs.
The Government have decided that the intensive and active campaign against abuse of the unemployment and disability payment schemes will be maintained and increased efforts to detect abuse of other social welfare schemes will also be made. Much of the groundwork for this has already been laid through the strengthening and improvement of the investigation, control, review and audit activities across the various services of the Department including the provision of extra staff and use of sophisticated computer techniques. Further action will be taken where necessary in the light of recommendations of the consultants who are advising the Department on the most cost-effective measures necessary to eliminate abuse of the system.
I am committed to continuing this work to reduce abuse, to the greatest extent possible, and I am satisfied that this can be done without adversely affecting in any way the quality of service provided to legitimate claimants. In fact it must be said that it is to the advantage of legitimate claimants that this be done as the elimination of fraud and abuse will serve to maximise the resources available to those genuinely in need.
In this connection I was glad to be able to announce earlier this week that the alleviating payments being paid to those affected by the introduction of the new dependency arrangements in November 1986 which the Government have already extended to the end of 1987, are being further extended to the end of March next at a cost of around £5 million. The eventual phasing out of these payments will be considered in the context of the budget.
I would like at this point to give the House a brief resume of the methods I am using to combat abuse. One of the most successful of these is the Department's external control unit. This unit, which now has a complement of 19 staff, reviews claims to unemployment payments, usually by way of interviewing claimants. Because of the very close liaison between this unit and other divisions of my Department, claimants are interviewed where, in the light of specific information obtained, there is reason to believe that the person may not have a legitimate entitlement. In this way, legitimate claimants are not affected and at the same time the activities of the unit are much more productive. Of 8,329 claimants called for interview by this unit in the current year to review their entitlement to unemployment payments 1,255 ceased claiming, of which 915 did so voluntarily. The overall savings in 1987 arising from the activities of this unit are estimated at £2.7 million.
There is also a special investigation unit within my Department assigned the specific task of the investigation of allegations of concurrent working and signing. This unit has been strengthened considerably in recent years and now consists of 42 staff. Of 4,558 claims to unemployment payments investigated by the unit up to August of this year, 1,227 were disallowed. The savings in 1987 arising from the overall activities of the special investigation unit are estimated at £4 million.
Thirdly, there is the Department's internal audit unit. This unit reviews on an ongoing basis the systems of internal control in the various branches of my Department so as to ensure that they are both adequate and functioning effectively. The internal audit unit has been significantly strengthened during the past year and has carried out a number of very successful examinations in different areas of the Department during that time. Where such reviews bring to light deficiencies, remedial action is taken.
Another method of combating abuse of the system is through the use of computerised systems. Through using computers it is possible not only to process claims more quickly and efficiently but also to integrate more effectively the information which is available in different parts of the system. For example, it enables details on claims for unemployment and disability benefit to be cross checked with data on the child benefit system.
During recent years there has been a massive and rapid programme of computerisation within my Department which has given rise to significant benefits. In July this year I signed a contract for £2.6 million worth of additional computers for the Department, mainly for the employment exchanges. At this stage the preparation and calculation of all unemployment assistance claims in the Dublin area is computerised. This is a totally new development.
Work is proceeding on unemployment benefit claims. This will be completed by mid-1988. At the same time computerisation is being extended to a number of centres outside Dublin, for example Cork, where unemployment assistance payments are now going on computer. I see computerisation in the years ahead as being absolutely essential in our efforts to achieve a more efficient and cost-effective service. In particular I am anxious to bring about a much greater degree of localisation of services so that services are delivered to the people in a more effective manner. It is my intention to have a telecommunications network linking all the Department's local offices over the next four years. This ongoing programme of computerisation will also facilitate the cross checking of applicants for all schemes administered by my Department.
Computerisation has also brought about considerable benefits in the disability benefit scheme. In particular the computerisation of the medical referral system has allowed greater selectivity in the referral of claimants to medical referees. In addition to the improved efficiency achieved through the computerisation of the system, the number of medical referees has been increased from 18 to 22. Of 88,000 claimants referred to a medical referee this year, 19,000 were found to be capable of work and 3,000 ceased to claim benefit. A further 19,000 persons failed to attend for examination and except in a small number of cases where there was good reason for their failure to attend, they were liable to a nine week disqualification and a second referral.
These control measures have helped to bring about a significant reduction in the number of people claiming disability benefit this year. The numbers claiming each week have in fact gone down from almost 82,000 early in the year — February — to 72,500 in December, a drop of over 9,000 a week. There has been a saving of around £8 million on disability payments this year.
I would also like to mention the appointment of a firm of international consultants to examine the whole range of controls within the social welfare system. Further measures in the campaign against abuse of the system will be taken in the light of the final report of the consultants. The consultants have highlighted a number of policy issues which need to be addressed and have made specific recommendations relating to organisation and procedural matters. Work on a detailed plan on foot of the consultants' findings has already commenced and the services of the consultants are being availed of in this work.
Finally, in this connection one of the main weapons available in this fight against abuse is prosecution of offenders. My Department will be following a vigorous programme of pursuit of fraud cases through their prosecution. In the case of disability benefit for instance, 125 cases have already been referred to the Chief State Solicitor's Office for prosecution this year as against 37 in all of 1986. Of the 45 cases finalised in court this year, there were 12 suspended prison sentences and 17 prison sentences in total. In one case a sentence of 12 months was imposed and in the other case the sentences ranged from three to seven months.
The Bill now before the House is particularly directed at fraud and abuse on the part of employers. I am concerned to ensure that unscrupulous employers who abuse the social welfare system will be pursued through to prosecution with the same vigour as fraudulent claimants. I know that the majority of employers do not engage in such practices, but I also know that there are many who do, perhaps by facilitating fraudulent claiming of unemployment and disability benefit payment by employees, even to the extent of providing transport for employees to the local employment exchange. In other instances, employers refuse to co-operate with or they may even obstruct social welfare officers in carrying out their investigations, for example, by delaying the inspector's examination of records of employees and their social insurance contributions. My Department already have powers to take prosecutions in cases of collusion or obstruction and there are existing penalties of fines up to £1,000 and/or 12 months imprisonment on summary conviction and fines up to £3,000 and/or two years imprisonment on conviction on indictment for employers who are found guilty of these offences.
This Bill, as amended in Dáil Éireann, provides for fines up to £1,000 and/or up to 12 months imprisonment on summary conviction, and fines not exceeding £10,000 and/or up to three years imprisonment on conviction on indictment for employers found guilty of these offences.
There is also the problem of employers who withhold or delay payment of PRSI contributions. While the primary responsibility for the collection of contributions rests with the Revenue Commissioners, the inspectorate of my Department have an important role here also. The investigation branch already carry out periodic surveys of employers' records so as to ensure compliance with the PRSI provisions. In the current year to end-November underpayments by over 2,250 employers, totalling some £3.4 million have been detected and reported to the Revenue Commissioners. Recently also a joint inspection unit drawn from the Revenue and Social Welfare inspectorates was set up on a pilot basis to investigate enterprises which are known to have a high incidence of tax and social welfare fraud. The pilot scheme is being evaluated at present to see how this type of joint action can be developed next year. Furthermore, the ongoing programme of computerisation to which I have referred is of very significant benefit to the inspection branch in detecting instances of abuse and will be so to a greater extent in the future.
A number of areas have been identified, however, in which existing powers to pursue employers who abuse the system are inadequate and need to be strengthened. Sections 2 to 7, inclusive, of this Bill are designed to meet these requirements.
In many cases where an employee is found to be working and claiming benefit the employer and the employee collude to reduce substantially the period of over-claiming. For example, the working and claiming may have been going on for several years before it is detected but both parties may represent that the employment is only of recent origin. In some instances, employers take on new employees on the specific understanding that the person concerned will continue to draw unemployment payments. The employee gains or perhaps more correctly, the Exchequer loses, through the non-payment of tax and social insurance contributions while the employer benefits through payment of reduced wages and often undercuts his legitimate competitors as a result. This has to stop. Section 2 of the Bill is designed to discourage such collusion by enabling the Minister to make regulations requiring employers to notify the Department of the commencement of employment for each new employee.
As this provision is designed to counter the activities of unscrupulous employers every effort will be made in drafting the regulations to avoid placing any unnecessary burden on employers generally. For example, it is not envisaged that notification will be required in the case of employees changing employment where the employee produces the appropriate documentation provided by his previous employer. The introduction of this requirement in the case of persons who, prior to taking up employment, were in receipt of unemployment payments will be an effective weapon in the elimination of collusion between employers and employees in fraudulently claiming unemployment payments.
What I am trying to bring about is a situation where employers will satisfy themselves when they take on additional employees that those employees are not at the same time claiming social welfare benefits. Co-operation by employers is also necessary at the stage when employees claim benefits under the system. The Department regularly ask employers to confirm details of periods of employment or absence from work through illness so as to verify claims to benefit or assistance.
In the case of disability benefit claims for instance, random checks of this nature have proved to be extremely effective in the detection of abuse. For example of 14,000 inquiries sent out to employers to check on persons claiming disability benefit 1,100 cases of possible abuse were revealed and overpayments of £460,000 have been detected to date. This year we have introduced a more effective system of following up these random checks by targeting particular industries. For example, in one major recent fraud investigation where a claimant was in employment during the period in which he was claiming disability benefit, a check of other employees with the same employer established that 22 of them were also working and claiming. Following on this a check on two other employers in the same industry in the same region brought to light a further 155 cases of fraudulent claiming. A number of successful prosecutions have already been taken and further court cases arising from these investigations are pending.
Most employers co-operate with requests for information to facilitate these random checks and I wish to record my appreciation for the level of co-operation which exists. However, some employers do not co-operate and sanctions are required against those employers who consistently fail to assist in these investigations. Section 3 of the Bill provides for sanctions which can be applied in the case of employers who fail to assist in investigations of claims to insurance-based payments and section 4 provides for a similar measure in the case of claims for assistance.
Another aspect of co-operation with employers is in the area of inspection of employer records. Under existing provisions, employers may be required to furnish such information and documents as may reasonably be required by a social welfare inspector for the purpose of investigation of claims. Sometimes it happens that employers delay inspectors in their examination of the required records by claiming that they are held by accountants or solicitors, who, in turn may say that they only hold a portion of the records. Section 5 is designed to counter evasive actions of this nature by imposing an obligation on employers to produce the required records at the employer's registered address or his principal place of business.
The present legislation requires employers to keep records of various kinds in relation to their employees, in particular records of earning. There is no provision in existing legislation, however, specifying the time at which these details should be recorded. While most reputable employers make the necessary entries in their records at regular intervals, some employers fail to maintain any records at all, or perhaps do so long after the event. Where this happens, it proves impossible to determine the true position in relation to such matters as the number of persons employed, the periods of employment, whether correct deductions of social insurance have been made and whether any other aspects of the social insurance scheme are being neglected or abused by the employer or any of his employees. It also serves to prevent the detection of cases of employees who may also be concurrently signing for unemployment payments. Failure to record the prescribed particulars on time can mean that if and when the records are eventually compiled they may not reflect the true position. This can be done for a variety of reasons such as to thwart an inquiry, to lessen the employer's liability or to cloak irregularities either by the employer or his employees. Section 6 is designed to overcome these problems by providing that details of earnings and the periods to which they refer must be recorded at, or before, the time of payment of wages.
Section 7 provides for an amendment so as to empower social welfare inspectors, for unemployment benefit purposes, to enter premises where self-employed persons are, or were, engaged in their occupations. The existing provisions refer only to premises where records relating to persons in insurable employment are kept. In recent years there has been a significant move towards contracting out work which up until now was performed by the employers own employees, for instance milk deliveries and the distribution of home fuels. The powers contained in section 7 of the Bill are necessary to help counter abuses such as employees being represented as sub-contractors so as to avoid payment of social insurance provisions in respect of their employees, concurrent working and signing by sub-contractors and failure by sub-contractors to comply with the social insurance provisions in respect of their employees. This amendment will bring the unemployment benefit provisions into line with those for unemployment assistance.
I would emphasise that the additional powers which are being provided in this Bill are directed at unscrupulous employers and not at those who are running their business in an honest and legitimate way. I value the operation of the system and I would appeal to those employers to maintain this level of co-operation in the future. I want to appeal especially in this regard to those honest employers in industries and sectors in which abuse is known to be prevalent because only in this way will we together be able to root out abuse effectively.
Before moving on to discuss the next part of the Bill, I would like to refer briefly to the level of penalties which are provided for in respect of the various offences which are involved. We had in the other House a very full and worthwhile discussion of these measures and I accepted an amendment which was put forward in that House and which provided for the very substantial penalties which we now have, namely, on summary conviction a fine of £1,000 or one year's imprisonment or both and on conviction on indictment a fine of up to £10,000 or three years imprisonment or both.
There were very strong feelings expressed about the need to tackle fraud by employers and I think the level of penalties now provided for reflects the level of concern which exists on this point. I might mention that these particular penalties are higher than those which apply under the existing legislation for other offences and in this regard I will be making the necessary arrangements at the first available oppurtunity to bring these other penalties into line with those now being provided for in this Bill.
The second main purpose for the Bill is to give effect to changes in social welfare schemes which were provided for in the Estimates. Sections 8 and 9 of the Bill provide for changes in the contribution conditions for entitlement to certain insurance based benefits. Section 8 provides that entitlement to extended duration of disability benefit, that is, beyond 12 months, for all new claimants from 4 January 1988 onwards, will require 260 paid contributions. These contributions entitle the claimant to disability benefit for as long as he or she is incapable of work and is under pensionable age. This benefit can continue for some long-term claimants for as long as 40 years. Section 9 provides that entitlement to invalidity pension for new claimants after 4 January 1988 will also require 260 paid contributions. Under existing provisions, 208 paid contributions are required for both of these payments.
These measures are designed to achieve more realistic contribution conditions for entitlement to these long-term payments by requiring that claimants have a reasonable history of paid contributions. The increased contributions for extended duration of disability benefit and invalidity pension will apply to new claimants only and the Government was conscious of the need to ensure that people who are already on long-term disability benefit would not be affected. A number of changes in this area have been made in recent years and, in fact, the provisions of sections 8 and 9 of the Bill were included in the 1987 budget proposals of the previous Government.
A further change to the disability benefit scheme is contained in section 16 of the Bill which provides for the introduction of three "waiting days" from April 1988 onwards for clamants to disability benefit transferring directly from maternity allowance to disability benefit. All new claimants for disability benefit at present must serve three waiting days and this provision merely extends this requirement to cases where people transfer directly to disability benefit, having been in receipt of maternity allowance.
A number of changes are being made to the old (general) scheme of maternity allowance. There are two schemes of maternity allowance. The old maternity allowance scheme, which was introduced under the National Insurance Act, 1911, provided for a payment to insured women for a period of twelve weeks subject to certain contribution conditions being met. The second scheme, the maternity allowance scheme for women in employment was introduced by me as Minister for Social Welfare in April 1981. This scheme which provides for a period of 14 weeks payment is available to women who are on maternity leave from work under the Maternity (Protection of Employees) Act, 1981, and who are entitled to resume work with the same employer at the end of the period of maternity leave. This scheme effectively superseded the old maternity scheme for women in employment. In order to eliminate any confusion which may exist, I would emphasise that entitlements under the maternity allowance scheme for women in employment remain in full and are not affected in any way by the provisions of this Bill.
Section 10 provides that entitlement to maternity allowance under the old (general) maternity allowance scheme for new claims from 4 January 1988 will be restricted to claimants who have at least 13 paid contributions in the governing contribution year. Under existing provisions, a claimant may qualify for the allowance on the basis of only credited contributions in that year. Section 10 also provides that from January next onwards, only contributions in the governing contribution year will be taken into account in determining eligibility for the allowance as is already the case with unemployment benefit and disability benefit entitlement.
Section 11 of the Bill provides for the abolition of entitlement to pay-related benefit in the case of all new claims for the old maternity allowance scheme which commence on or after 4 April 1988. This will not affect the level of benefit payable under the new maternity allowance scheme. Under that scheme, which as I have said, is now the new scheme of maternity protection for women in employment, provides benefit at the rate of 70 per cent of earnings, and effectively guarantees full replacement of net pay, with a minimum payment set at the relatively high level of £76 per week.
The Bill also contains a technical amendment relating to the maternity allowance scheme for women in employment. Under existing provisions the maximum amount of the allowance payable is equal to 70 per cent of the claimant's weekly earnings up to the earnings limit prescribed for pay-related benefit purposes, currently £11,000 per year. Interpretation of existing provisions has been questioned however and the purpose of section 12 is to clarify the definition of "reckonable weekly earnings" applied in the calculation of the allowance. I would emphasise however that this is a technical amendment which does not affect in any way entitlements under the maternity allowance scheme for women in employment. The substantial changes in this area all relate to the old maternity allowance scheme and the fact is that the need for the old scheme has to a large extent been superseded by the introduction of the maternity allowance scheme for women in employment and I would expect that henceforth, the needs of women in this area will be met by this scheme.
Section 13 of the Bill provides for an amendment to the trade dispute provisions, under which persons who have lost employment by reason of a stoppage of work, may be disqualified for receiving unemployment payments or supplementary welfare allowance. Under existing provisions persons who do not stand to gain materially from a strike by fellow workers may be prevented from obtaining unemployment benefit or assistance and supplementary welfare allowance if they are, for example, members of the same grade or class of workers as those engaged in the dispute. Section 13 provides that persons will no longer be automatically disqualified from receiving unemployment payments or supplementary welfare allowance on such grounds. The only circumstances in which the trade disputes disqualification will apply in future is where the person concerned is participating in or directly interested in the dispute. I think this is a very worthwhile improvement in the system and I am sure that the House will welcome it.
Section 14 of the Bill provides for an amendment of the powers of the Social Welfare Tribunal which I established in 1982 as a result of a number of disputes in which a large number of workers were refused unemployment payments and where the employers had acted unreasonably. I believe the establishment of this tribunal has proved of major benefit to workers in this sort of situation. Representations have, however, been made to the effect that it can happen that, at the time the tribunal is sitting, which often occurs during the actual course of a stoppage, all the detailed facts and information surrounding the dispute may not be readily to hand. In these circumstances it is felt that the tribunal should have power to review its decision. This amendment is designed to allow the tribunal review its decision where new evidence or new facts are brought to its attention, subsequent to the date of the original decision. Under existing provisions the tribunal is only empowered to review an earlier decision where it is satisfied that a material change has occurred in the circumstances of the stoppage of work or the trade dispute which caused the stoppage of work. This amendment will bring the tribunal's powers of review generally into line with those of appeals officers.
The Bill also contains a number of other miscellaneous provisions designed to rationalise and improve aspects of the social welfare system. The provisions of section 15 arise from the introduction of the new dependency arrangements in November 1986, as part of the implementation of the EC Equality Directive, and provide for an amendment of the definition of "adult dependant", so as to preclude certain categories of person from qualifying as adult dependants. The categories involved are persons who are disqualified from receiving unemployment payments in their own right, by virtue of their involvement in a trade dispute, and participants of certain full-time AnCO non-craft training courses.
Under existing provisions, persons disqualified from receiving unemployment payments, by virtue of their involvement in a trade dispute, may still qualify as adult dependants. This situation did not effectively arise prior to the introduction of the new dependency arrangements in November 1986 as up until then women could only receive increases in respect of their husbands in very exceptional circumstances. At the same time, as women qualified as dependants of their husbands regardless of whether they were in employment, an adult dependant allowance payable in respect of a woman involved in a trade dispute would have been payable prior to the commencement of the dispute.
The amendment affecting participants of certain full-time AnCO non-craft training courses also arises as a consequence of the Equal Treatment Directive. As a general rule, persons in receipt of an income maintenance payment in their own right may not be regarded as dependants. The payment of increases in respect of participants of certain AnCO courses conflicts with this provision. As the rate of payment to participants of such courses was linked to the rate of unemployment benefit payments, it was necessary, following implementation of the Directive, to restructure payments made to participants of these courses to reflect the revised social welfare dependency arrangements. As a result of these changes, a family in which one spouse is in receipt of a social welfare payment, and the other is participating in a full-time, non-craft training course may, through a combination of social welfare and AnCO payments, receive the equivalent of two personal rates of payment, together with an adult dependant allowance, and one and a half times the child dependant allowance. The effect of this amendment will be to prevent this double payment.
The changes contained in section 17 of the Bill are also related to the EC Directive on equal treatment. The existing provisions provide that, on the death of a person who is in receipt of benefit, the spouse is entitled to payment of that benefit for a period of six weeks after death. While after death payments are regarded as a survivor's benefit and are therefore technically outside of the scope of the EC Directive on Equal Treatment, these provisions are nonetheless affected by the new dependency arrangements introduced in November 1986. The purpose of section 17 is to apply the principle of equal treatment between men and women to the after death provisions, by providing that such payments will in future be made where at the date of death the deceased was in receipt of an increase in respect of an adult dependant, whether that dependant was a man or a woman.
Finally the Bill makes provision for two minor but significant improvements in the social welfare code, one affecting claims to disability benefit and the other relating to old age pensioners. Under existing provisions, a claimant is not entitled to disability benefit in respect of any period of paid holiday leave. This causes a break in the claim where an insured person is on sick leave immediately before a period of paid holiday leave and, as a consequence, the claimant is obliged to serve a further three waiting days at the end of the holiday period. Section 16 (1) (a) is designed to relieve claimants of this obligation.
Section 18 provides that income received by way of mobility allowance payable under the Health Act, 1970, will be disregarded in the assessment of means for the non-contributory old age pension. This allowance which was introduced in 1979 under the Health Act, 1970, applies to severely handicapped persons over age 16 who are unable to walk and who would benefit from occasional trips away from home. An earnings disregard of £6 per week is applied in the assessment of means for non-contributory pension.
The amount of the mobility allowance when it was first introduced was £150 per year and where there were no other means the allowance did not affect the rate of pension because of the £6 per week disregard. This is no longer the case however as the allowance has since been increased to £320 per year. This amendment provides that money received by way of the allowance will no longer be taken into account in the assessment for old age pension. Income from other allowances payable under the Health Acts, such as the disabled persons maintenance allowance and the infectious diseases maintenance allowance, is already disregarded.
The changes I am putting forward in this Bill are designed to improve significantly in a number of respects the operation of the present social welfare system and the control mechanisms which operate. It is extremely important that in a system as vast as this social welfare system which is responsible for the expenditure of vast amounts of taxpayers' money, the system of control should be adequate and be constantly reviewed and amended where necessary.
The proposals in this Bill will bring about needed improvements in the present system and will help to achieve a more effective use of our resources. I can assure the House that I will be taking whatever measures are necessary to develop the efficiency and effectiveness of the delivery of existing services while at the same time ensuring that the necessary systems of control are present within the system. It is in this spirit that I would ask the House to agree to the proposals in this Bill.
I am also engaged in extending social insurance to the self-employed as well as the introduction of statutory sick pay. The proposals in this Bill will bring about much needed improvements in the present system and help to achieve a more effective use of resources. It is extremely important that while further improvements to the system are being drawn up, we constantly try to improve and develop the efficiency and effectiveness of existing services.
I am concerned at the extent of fraud and abuse in unemployment and sickness payments. I intend to vigorously pursue unscrupulous employers who collude in defrauding and cheating the taxpayer, the Exchequer and their competitors. The limited resources available must be directed to those in genuine need. I look forward to the assistance and co-operation of honest employers in eliminating these abuses.
I commend the Bill to the House.
