Vol. 470 No. 2
40 Mr. J. Walsh asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he will specify in detail the extra fraud detection resources which he has made available in his Department since the publication of the recent Central Statistics Office report which suggested widespread fraud in the social welfare system. [18554/96]
42 Mr. Clohessy asked the Minister for Social Welfare the measures, if any, being taken by his Department to deal with the fraudulent claiming of social welfare payments; the targets and timetable he has set for the elimination of such fraud; his estimation of the current cost of this fraud to the Exchequer; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18861/96]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 40 and 42 together.
The detection of fraud and abuse of social welfare scheme is an integral part of the work of my Department and all departmental staff. The control and compliance activities undertaken by the Department include carrying out inspections of employers in relation to PRSI obligations, inquiries of claimants in relation to their entitlement to payments, reviews of means and other selective interviews by investigative staff, matching of data from different scheme areas, medical examinations and so on.
There are some 570 staff engaged specifically in the control of fraud and abuse of the various social welfare schemes at local, regional and national level. This includes 383 regional staff and 187 at central level who are engaged in work related to control.
As I have indicated in an earlier reply of 9 October, additional resources to these are being assigned to tackle fraud abuse in the social welfare system. These resources will be allocated as quickly as they can be made available, trained and put in place in their appropriate locations. The Department has so far deployed five additional specialist control officers and the balance will be assigned as they become available during the remainder of the year. The enhanced programme for management of the live register which I have put in place is an ongoing one with as yet an indeterminate timescale. The situation will be kept under continuous review and if more resources are necessary, they will be made available.
I have recently put in place an enhanced programme of measures to tackle social welfare fraud and abuse, in particular, of unemployment payments. All new claims for social welfare are carefully scrutinised to ensure that claimants understand their obligations, that they provide full and accurate information on their circumstances and that they are aware of the support services available. To assist with this a new more detailed claim form has now gone into use. A programme of six monthly interviews of unemployed persons is being put in place to review people's continued eligibility. Persons who are considered to be at particular risk of fraudulent claims will be subject to special review and, where appropriate, more rigorous signing arrangements.
Claimants will be expected to register with FÁS; those who refuse offers of appropriate training and development opportunities will have their entitlement reviewed. New improved arrangements for the transfer of information between FÁS and my Department are being put in place to facilitiate access to appropriate training and employment opportunities by claimants and to ensure that my Department is fully informed of claimants' responses to offers from FÁS. Social welfare local offices are currently launching a major campaign to verify recorded addresses of unemployed claimants which will include a programme of home visits and other spot checks. Special questionnaires are being issued to validate addresses and to reinforce conditions for the receipt of unemployment payments. Already more than 20,000 forms have been issued and the programme is continuing.
A publicity campaign is planned for late October-early November to mobilise public disapproval of social welfare fraud and to increase public awareness of the anti-fraud campaign. A consultancy study is being prepared to review and advise on the current anti-fraud and control measures. Additional staff are being assigned to work associated with the control of fraud and abuse of unemployment payments.
In addition, there is a programme of employer inspections which will result in some 9,000 employers being investigated by the end of the year to ensure they are meeting their PRSI obligations.
Experience in Ireland and internationally shows that it is very difficult at any time to estimate the level of abuse and/or of fraud of the social welfare system. However, the levels of detected abuse, with their resultant overpayments of benefit, of underpayments of PRSI, show that there is a continual level of abuse, perpetrated by a minority of claimants and employers. This abuse can range from minor short-term irregularities to serious deliberate fraud of the system.
I am determined to tackle fraud and abuse of the social welfare system effectively and to apply the full rigour of the law to those employers and claimants who deliberately set out to defraud the system.
During Question Time sessions in the past year or more the Minister stated that fraud in his Department was minuscule and was not a problem. About six weeks ago the Minister informed the country there was widespread fraud, that 20 per cent to 25 per cent of the live register was fraudulently claiming. Has the Minister carried out an assessment of the structures and the audit within his Department? Clearly, they must be inadequate in view of this level of fraud. What precise steps has he taken to identify and rectify those inadequacies within his Department?
I have already given the Deputy a fairly extensive outline of the steps taken by the Department to enhance its control procedures. On the question of fraud it should be borne in mind that there are a number of ways in which over payments may be made in relation to social welfare. Incorrect payment occurs as a result of error or incorrect or incomplete data. Abuse occurs when its recipients fail to reveal circumstances which might affect entitlement, for example, increased capital, a spouse commencing work etc. Fraud is a deliberate attempt by an individual to claim a payment to which he or she is not entitled, for example, by making false declarations, personation, current working and claiming, collusion by employers or employees in enabling an employee to retain social welfare improperly while working full time, the employer thereby avoiding paying PRSI or PAYE on behalf of the person employed.
I compliment the Department of Social Welfare on its efforts to combat fraud. The last live register report showed a drop of 2,000 from the previous report. Is it possible to ascertain how many of those people were defrauding the system?
In the nature of things it would not be possible to say that a person signed off the live register because of fraud or for any other reason as the vast majority of people sign off without informing the Department of Social Welfare as to the reasons. These people may be taking up a job, starting training or education, going abroad etc. In the press statement issued on the September live register figures we pointed out that a number of factors led to the decrease. In any event, there is a seasonal decline in the numbers signing on in September when schools reopen and cleaners and temporary teachers who signed on during the summer return to work. A number of companies also recommence work in September after the summer period. It is difficult to identify precisely the reasons a person signs off the live register, but a significant proportion of the signing off took place during the latter half of September following the publicity about fraud.
On how many occasions has the Minister met his colleague, the Minister for Justice, since this large scale level of fraud came into the public arena six weeks ago?
It is not necessary for me to meet the Minister for Justice about this matter. When the Department identifies deliberate fraud it makes sure that the Chief State Solicitor's office is made aware of it. It also prepares the evidence and brings cases to court. All cases of overpayment by claimants or non-payments by employers are examined for their potential to prosecute them. At the end of the day it is not for the Department to apportion blame in the sense of deciding that a criminal act has been perpetrated. This is a matter for the courts and where we can produce the evidence to that effect we bring cases to court. There are later questions today on the number of prosecutions last year and this year and I will be happy to deal with the issue in my reply to them.
It is beyond belief to think that the Minister for Social Welfare has not met his colleague the Minister for Justice given that there is a level of fraud of, on his estimate, at least £1 million per day. Has the Minister met the Garda Authorities since this matter came into the public arena?
Lest the Deputy's statement is seen as a statement of fact, I have never stated that there is fraud to the level of £1 million per day. That is utter and total nonsense.
The Minister is on the public record as saying it is between 20-25 per cent and he should not try to backtrack.
The Deputy should learn——
It is the Minister's statement——
A Leas-Cheann Comhairle, will you ask the Deputy to allow me to answer his nonsensical questions?
Let us hear the Minister's reply.
The Deputy should learn something about his brief.
The Minister only opened up to his brief after two years.
If the Deputy examines my replies he will find that what he has said is utter nonsense.
I am not being given answers to my questions. When I asked the Minister if he had met the Minister for Justice he said there was no need for him to do so. When I asked if he had met the Garda Authorities instead of an answer I got abuse. Given the level of fraud, as announced by the Minister, this is beyond belief. Is the Minister saying that he has made statements on this matter but has not gone to the bother of meeting the Minister for Justice or the Garda? Are records kept in the Department of contacts between it, the Department of Justice and the Garda?
The Deputy's problem is that during all the years his party was in office and had control of the Department of Social Welfare it flunked the task of dealing with the issues of fraud and abuse in any serious way.
The Minister should answer the question and not try to evade it.
I have already given a detailed list of the measures being taken by my Department to deal with fraud and abuse.
The Minister will not fool people with that kind of reply.
The Minister without interruption, please.
The Minister should be directed to answer the question.
I am sure that when the Deputy has had time to read the list he will appreciate the value of what is being done. Of course, the action will not stop there. There is a range of other measures in the pipeline and these will be announced as and when we are ready to proceed with them.
The Deputy asked if I had met the Garda Síochána and the Minister for Justice. There is no need to do this as we are actively trying to identify those people who may be abusing the system and examining any cases we come across with a view to bringing prosecutions. When we have evidence we present it to the Chief State Solicitor's office which processes the cases. There is no need for the kind of window dressing in which the Deputy is seeking me to be engaged.
The Minister would know all about window dressing.
Will the Minister give an assurance that every effort will be made to ensure that the increases provided in the budget will go to people drawing social welfare legally so that fraudsters do not benefit?
As I said in my reply, the intrinsic role and function of all staff of the Department of Social Welfare is to try to ensure that those who present claims do so legitimately and that those employers who have an obligation to make PRSI returns and to notify the Department of new employees do so. In excess of 570 staff are deployed in specifically seeking to ensure that these controls, which were recently enhanced, are in place and properly implemented. I will ensure that the measures in place are maintained and further enhanced in so far as it is humanly possible to do so over the next period.
What additional fiscal resources has the Minister obtained to reduce this massive level of fraud? Does he intend to restore the cut in the A2 subhead which covers travelling expenses for the fraud detection officers in his Department?
The Government has agreed that I can have whatever resources are necessary to enable me to deal with this matter. The Deputy's figures in regard to subsistence and travel allowances for those involved in control activity are incorrect. A reply to a later question shows that there has been an increase in expenditure for that work over the past three years.
There has been a reduction of £67,000.
The Deputy does not know how to read the Estimates. He will have to do more homework.
The Minister is a disgrace; he is whistling past the graveyard.
The least the Deputy should do is acknowledge the facts.
