I propose to take Questions Nos. 106 to 109 inclusive together.
Control measures designed to combat abuses of the disability benefit scheme are a feature of the administration of the scheme. All claims are subject to a range of checks and in particular many thousands of claims are examined each year to determine whether there are any irregularities arising from concurrent working and claiming of benefit. These investigations are an ongoing aspect of control activity and prosecutions are taken where warranted.
One aspect of the control measures involves the issue of questionnaires to a proportion of employers. The employer is asked to indicate periods of absence from work due to incapacity on the part of a particular employee. The general issue of questionnaires to all employers is not necessary and would be disproportionately wasteful of Department resources. Systematic surveys of particular firms are also undertaken from time to time. This involves a check of the disability benefit claims of employees against attendance records. Broadly the approach is to combine a certain amount of random checking with particularly targeted examinations directed at areas which are perceived to be at risk. It is a most cost effective and efficient approach which ensures the best use of the Department's resources and also does not unduly constitute a burden on employers.
The Department is aware that some employers dismissed employees following on investigations into concurrent working and claiming. This action is taken entirely without any consultation with or pressure from my Department. I have a duty to ensure that beneficiaries of the scheme receive their entitlements and equally that abuse is appropriately dealt with. I cannot comment on any subsequent or consequent action taken by third parties.
The Unfair Dismissals Act, 1977, provides recourse for employees who claim that they have been unfairly dismissed by laying down criteria by which dismissals are judged to be unfair and by providing an adjudication system and redress for an employee whose dismissal is found to be unjustified. Any employee who feels that he or she has been unfairly dismissed may have recourse to the provisions of that legislation. However, it is a matter entirely outside the remit of my Department.
There are no figures available in the Department to show the proportion of the difference between Irish absentee rates and British absentee rates which can be accounted for by claiming disability benefit while at work. It is worth noting, however, that there has been a significant change in the number of persons making disability benefit claims over the past few years. For example, in 1981 in excess of 290,000 persons made claims for disability benefit whereas in 1988 the number was just over 180,000. This illustrates very clearly the dramatic improvements which have been brought about by the whole range of measures undertaken over the past few years by the Department to control abuse, deal with fraud and generally cope with the question of appropriate access to the scheme.
In 1986 an amnesty from prosecution for those who admitted to existing or earlier irregularities in relation to the social welfare system was introduced. However, only a handful of individuals applied under its terms in relation to disability benefit. The approach was not particularly successful and there are no proposals to repeat it.
