asked the Minister for Social Welfare if she will give the total cost of the Craig Gardner report on social welfare abuse; if it is intended to publish the findings of the Craig Gardner investigation; and if she will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Social Welfare Abuse.
7.
The project undertaken by the consultants is designed to afford an examination of all the major payment systems of the Department with a view to establishing where they are most at risk and to advising on the best cost-effective measures to keep these risks to a minimum. The work in connection with this project is extensive in nature due to the vast scope and complexity of the various social welfare schemes and the variety of systems both manual and computerised used in their administration. The project covers all aspects of the schemes being surveyed, including the administration of those schemes with a view to eliminating waste or abuse of any sort from the system. Work on the project commenced at the end of last August. This work is being done in several phases and it is still ongoing. The cost of the work undertaken to date by Craig Gardner is £50,830 (exclusive of VAT). The cost of the subsequent phases of the assignment has not been agreed as the detailed work content has not yet been finalised.
As regards publication of the reports, all I can say at this stage is that in view of the confidential nature of the subject matter obviously I would be reluctant to consider publishing the actual reports as this could well prejudice the ongoing work of the Department in administering their schemes. However, when the final reports of the project have been received and evaluated, it is my intention to make a detailed statement on the findings and on the follow-up action which I propose to take.
Would the Minister indicate whether part of the work of the consultants is to carry out an opinion poll on people's attitudes to abuse or fraud in the system? If so, does she regard that as an adequate way of assessing the extent of such abuse?
An opinion poll has nothing to do with establishing the extent of fraud or abuse. It is very important that the public should be convinced of the proper carrying out of duties by any State Department, particularly when large amounts of public money are being spent. There have been many media reports and discussions in this House on fraud, abuse, the level of such fraud or abuse, and even whether it exists in the social welfare system. It seemed to be a very valuable part of the terms of reference of any study of the system to establish through well accepted modes what exactly the public think about fraud or abuse in the system. I believe this is relevant but is not intended to establish the level of fraud or abuse.
Are the results of that kind of opinion survey intended to be used in decision making and deciding on ways to control abuse? If so, is it proposed to publish the nature of the survey, and the questions and the findings of that survey?
As I said, the work of establishing the public perception of the level of abuse in the social welfare system is a valuable part of an overall study. In terms of making the results of that survey known. I can see no reason for doing so. Obviously we will make a very detailed statement on the project and the follow up action. I can see no reason for not making available all the questions in the survey and I intend to do that.
In the investigations being undertaken by the consultants into the social welfare system, did the Minister consider that the Department were capable of carrying out this research, as was recommended by the Commission on Social Welfare? Has the question of underpayments of social welfare to people who may not be aware of, or who are not getting their proper payments, been made part of the work of, the consultants? Has the question of the employers defaulting on the payments of PRSI been made part of the terms of reference of the consultants?
I announced the establishment of an independent consultancy to assist us in this work because it was extremely important that the general public should feel that every possible method is being used to establish that public money is being spent correctly. There was, and there continues to be, a great deal of public comment on this subject. I believe this was a very wise step to take but it is only part of our ongoing work. Last summer we issued a general range of measures designed to deal with fraud and this is part of it. I make no apology for employing independent consultants to look into this area. Their terms of reference are specifically designed to examine the payments system, with the specific purpose of finding out if there was danger of fraud and abuse, and not the other matters which the Deputy mentioned.
I cannot allow an indefinite number of questions.
A final question: would the Minister not agree that it would make sense, if she is investigating social welfare abuse, that the abuse by employers of PRSI payments is a valid area for investigation in view of the fact that many employees who find themselves unemployed or sick on many occasions cannot get benefit because their employer has not sent in the appropriate contributions? Will she not also say that the purpose of her Department should be to ensure that everyone who is entitled to a benefit gets it? There is also concern about under-payments.
The Deputy raised a completely different question. My Department operate an extremely efficient and widespread information service across the country. They fully inform people of their entitlements and constantly make available all the rates and entitlements of people. On the question of the collection of PRSI, the Deputy may recall that one of the measures we announced last autumn in the package of anti-fraud measures was a joint inspection group made up of my Department and the Revenue Commissioners, who are the collecting agency for PRSI, to examine specific areas where it was suspected there were difficulties with PRSI, PAYE and so on. I consider that was the best thing to do.
I will allow one more question from Deputy Seán McCarthy and I will move on then.
Will the Minister not concede, in view of the amount of untold publicity which fraud in the social welfare area received in the past, in some instances with quite hysterical headlines that it would not be in the public interest, that the Craig Gardner report be published? It might be seen as an indictment of all those on social welfare payments that the details of the report are not open to the public. There is something sinister in a report that is kept secret, behind closed doors. It would serve the public much better if the details were made available to them.
As I said in the original answer, many of the areas covered by the report are very confidential matters in the Department. Publishing it would negate the whole purpose of combating fraud and abuse. That would be showing people how to defraud or abuse the system. It is important, and I have said this before, when the final report is made available to me that the public should have a very detailed statement on it. They should also be informed of the follow-up action the Department propose to take following the making public of that statement.
Can I ask——
I said that was the last question.
I wish to ask a very brief question. We have been very good today.
It is about time.
Will the Minister consider suspending the plan for issuing identity cards to unemployed people which will commence in February next year in Clondalkin and which will stigmatise unemployed people? Will she concede that that system be suspended?
That is a completely separate question.