Vol. 472 No. 2
20 Mr. J. Walsh asked the Minister for Social Welfare the plans, if any, which exist to improve the level of co-operation and exchange of information between the different Government agencies in the fight against social welfare fraud; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [16886/96]
As I indicated in recent replies to parliamentary questions, an intensified programme of control measures has been introduced to tackle fraud and abuse of the social welfare system by claimants and employers. This programme has involved the assignment of additional resources, review of guidelines, intensification of interviewing of claimants, and of inspections of employers, a claim review exercise of all unemployed claimants, including reverification of their addresses, an extensive publicity campaign and a range of other activities.
I am conscious, however, that my Department cannot successfully tackle abuses of its services without the co-operation of the public, employers and of course all other relevant Government Departments and agencies. There has always been a high level of co-operation between my Department and other Government Departments and agencies in tackling social welfare fraud and abuse. Information is exchanged and acted upon on an ongoing basis with a range of organisations, including the Revenue Commissioners, FÁS, An Post, health boards, third level colleges and other Government Departments.
A joint investigation unit of inspectors from my Department and the Revenue Commissioners operates, using combined resources and expertise on a nationwide basis to tackle social welfare and tax fraud.
As part of the new package of measures, meetings have taken place at central, regional and local level between FÁS and social welfare officials to step up and agree local co-operation in relation to recruitment for specific FÁS projects and for follow-up contact of people on the live register who have not recently registered with FÁS. This has resulted in specific local initiatives with further activities planned for the future. Further improvements and enhancements in the exchange of computerised data and the extension of shared information are also being planned.
The question of improving and enhancing the level of co-operation with the various Departments and agencies in the context of the control of social welfare fraud is being investigated and will be kept under continuous review. I am determined to ensure that all appropriate measures are taken to seek out and counteract fraud and abuse of the social welfare system.
Given that this matter has been reviewed and that there has been monitoring since the CSO survey, what is the Minister's best estimate of the level of social welfare fraud?
There is constant controversy and debate about that matter. The only information I have relates to a survey carried out some years ago specifically on fraud, which found that the level of criminal fraud as distinct from abuse in terms of overpayments and so on was in the region of 2 per cent. It identified a possible level of fraud of about 7 per cent, but it could not be certain that was an accurate figure. It is difficult to be precise on this matter. Since we intensified our efforts in regard to fraud and abuse almost 20,000 people have voluntarily signed off the live register, which resulted in considerable savings for the Department of Social Welfare. No system in Europe has eliminated fraud and abuse completely, but it is my intention to ensure it is kept to the absolute minimum.
It is disquieting that the Department does not have at least an estimate of the level of social welfare fraud. The Minister told the select committee some time ago that, leaving aside the difficulty with addresses and other matters, he believed that the figure for those signing while working was close to 11 per cent. Are the measures being monitored accurately? The fact that 20,000 people signed off the live register in a relatively short period suggests there is rampant fraud. The Minister should be able to indicate with a fair degree of accuracy the level of fraud.
We should stick to the facts rather than guesswork. The only additional information I can give the Deputy on this matter relates to the savings made for 1995 and to end October 1996 under the various headings. On unemployment payments there was a saving in 1995 of £48.7 million while up to October this year it was £48 million; on illness payments the saving in 1995 was £25.2 million while up to October this year it was £20.6 million; on pensions the saving for 1995 was £29.7 million while up to October this year it was £33.1 million; on child benefit the saving in 1995 was £2.4 million while up to October 1996 it was £2.7 million; on recovery of PAYE and PRSI the saving for 1995 was £16 million while up to October 1996 it was £11.8 million; on pre-retirement allowance and FIS the saving in 1995 was £2.5 million while up to October 1996 it was £2.7 million. Total savings in 1995 amounted to £124.5 million while up to October this year total savings amounted to £119.1 million.
I have no option but to ask another supplementary because this is obfuscation and I will not get accurate information on this matter. Has the report of the Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs been brought to the Minister's attention? That is a damning report in terms of the Minister's incompetence. It stated that there must have been serious shortcomings in operational procedures in the Department. It also stated that the anti-fraud measures introduced by the Department of Social Welfare should be independently monitored — in other words, it did not trust the Department to monitor them properly — and that they should be reported twice yearly to the relevant committee of the House, possibly by the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Has the Minister responded to the chairman of the committee on that matter?
I know the Deputy would like me to respond angrily to the points he is making but I do not intend to. The report to which the Deputy referred has been brought to my attention. I have asked the Department to prepare a response on my behalf and that will be done in due course. I have been Minister for Social Welfare since December 1994, slightly less than two years. The Deputy's party was responsible for the Department of Social Welfare for many years and it is only since I became Minister that the issue of fraud is being dealt with in a serious way.
Does the Minister agree his Department has limited financial resources to deal with the problem of fraud and that these scarce resources should be put to best effect? Will he agree also that rather than subjecting farmers with less than five livestock units to means tests, they should be exempted from means testing if they can prove they have less than five livestock units, and any resources saved directed at detecting fraud in the system? Will the Minister further agree that extending eligibility for community employment schemes would free up resources for social welfare officers, thereby achieving two results? First, it would make employment available to people who want to work and, second, it would help to identify more accurately those who are working and drawing the dole at the same time. That would be better than going around the country counting chickens and cows owned by pensioners.
Regardless of the resources it may get, no Department believes it has enough resources. To be fair to my Government colleagues, in particular the Minister for Finance, the resources I required to intensify the necessary control procedures have been provided, and I do not have any complaints in that regard. I do not accept the rest of the Deputy's question. Where the law requires means testing to be carried out it should be carried out——
The Minister can change the system.
——regardless of whether the recipient is a farmer or an unemployed person.
The Select Committee on Finance and General Affairs drew to the Minister's attention the fact that there was a huge increase in expenditure on lone parent's payments, rent supplements and living alone allowances. Will the Minister comment on that matter?
That is a separate question.
