Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 11 February 2004
77 Mr. Ring asked the Minister for Social and Family Affairs the amount her Department's investigations into social welfare fraud cost in the past year; the number of people in her Department who were involved in the investigation process and at what cost; the number of people who were prosecuted; and the number of people who were specifically prosecuted for fraud of the rent supplement scheme. [4572/04]
View answerThe detection of fraud and abuse of the social welfare system is an integral part of the day-to-day work of my Department. In this regard, all staff engaged in claims processing are concerned with preventing and detecting fraud and abuse. Controls are exercised at both the initial claim stage and subsequent stages during the claim life cycle. Claims are reviewed on a regular and targeted basis.
A special investigation unit, comprising 80 staff spread throughout the country, is involved in work specifically related to the investigation of employers and employees where fraud and abuse is suspected. These officers, some of whom work jointly with inspectors from the Revenue Commissioners, carry out inspections of employers with regard to their PRSI obligations as well as investigating cases where fraud or abuses of the schemes are suspected.
During 2003, 320,000 reviews of entitlements were carried out by my Department's staff. The records of 7,600 employers were inspected to ensure compliance with the Department's regulations and, in particular, to prevent and detect abuses of the system. Control activity in 2003 resulted in savings of €306,183. The estimated salary cost of control work per se in 2002 was in the region of €16.3 million and an additional €1.3 million was spent on related overtime, travel and subsistence. During the year, a total of 405 cases were forwarded by my Department to the Office of the Chief State Solicitor for the initiation of court proceedings. A total of 218 cases were finalised in court in that year. Of these, 11 served prison sentences, 17 received suspended sentences and 109 were fined.
Subject to my general direction and control, each health board is, in respect of its functional area, responsible for the administration of the functions relating to the supplementary welfare allowance scheme, under which rent supplements are paid. All health board staff engaged in work on the supplementary allowance scheme take measures to prevent and detect fraud and abuse and recover over-payments. I am reviewing the general position on the control of the supplementary allowance scheme, with particular reference to any legislative requirements that may be necessary to improve controls in this area.
I compliment the staff of the Department of Social and Family Affairs on the moneys they have saved the State. There is no time for anybody who defrauds the State or takes taxpayers' money illegitimately. I was glad to hear the Minister state in her reply that there are approximately 80 staff working on fraud on a full-time basis, costing approximately €16.3 million.
I asked the Minister about rent supplement but she did not answer my question. She has made major changes to the rent supplement scheme and the Department made much play of this on the basis that there was considerable fraud. Has anybody been prosecuted and convicted for defrauding this scheme? Have employers who did not make PRSI contributions for their employees been prosecuted?
I am glad the Government is putting in place the necessary staff and resources to detect those engaged in social welfare fraud. I hope similar resources will be put in place to combat tax defrauders and that the poor will not have to pay for such fraud while the rich get away without having to do so. This is why we have so many tribunals. I compliment the Minister and her staff on saving the taxpayers €320 million.
There is a difference between fraud and genuine mistakes by Department officials implementing social welfare schemes and those on the schemes. Sometimes people's circumstances change while they are benefiting from a social welfare scheme and they are not aware of the consequences. The Minister will say that their application forms state they are supposed to notify the Department of any changes in their income, but sometimes this does not happen because of genuine mistakes rather than fraud. Those who are defrauding the State, such as those drawing lone parent's allowance while living with somebody or those drawing unemployment benefit while working, should be dealt with.
I am advised that the rent supplement is administered on my behalf by the community welfare officers through the health boards. They have a different procedure in which they evaluate and address the issue of fraud. My Department is not directly involved in this and I have no figures regarding prosecutions. In the main, there have been none. It is on that basis that I have indicated that I will be examining any legislative requirements that may be necessary, given that the health boards do not have recourse to the Chief State Solicitor who would prosecute on my behalf.
The Deputy was anxious to ascertain the situation regarding employers. There are 7,561 employers who had PRSI inspections and 91% were found to be compliant. That is very high. It is based solely by reference to the amount of PRSI savings determined. The Deputy will notice that under PAYE-PRSI savings there will be in the region of €10.29 million. Of the prosecutions, I do not have a review of the types of cases taken, but the high percentage of compliance reflects that not many people have been prosecuted with regard to PAYE or PRSI. I compliment employers. This is a good step forward for people.
On the issue of balance, it is important to appreciate that non-compliance is not necessarily fraud. The Department may make a mistake or people make mistakes because they do not understand changes. In such circumstances where there is an overpayment people can be facilitated and they are not seen as fraudulent. It is important to have that facility in order to achieve a balance.
