Should we have an Amnesty for Social Welfare Fraud?

[fionnmccool]

- require (over 12 months rolling basis say using DOB's) every recipient to re-apply in person and with photo ID

I agree that every person should prove their identity. I have heard of people who have been claiming unemployment in 2 names for decades even while working and who will then get to draw 2 pensions when they retire. They set up their fraud before the advent of computerisation. We should try to catch these people.

[Question R24U]

Surely this is a problem?

Social Welfare Inspectors who had been concentrating on fraud activity had to be diverted to means testing customers, in order to get their payment as speedily as possible. This, the Minister said, resulted in slightly less being realised under fraud control than had been envisaged at the start of 2008, however, the €25million of savings in targeted programmes announced in July had been achieved. These included;

The Special Investigation Unit undertaking more regular interviews of recipients of jobseeker payments, particularly those with high risk ratings. The savings realised since July were €8.7million.
Lone parent recipients with earnings are targeted for review. A special project in Kilbarrack yielded €435,000.
Since July 2008, the frequency of mail shots to validate continued entitlement to Child Benefit has been doubled, to 3 monthly intervals for EU worker customers and 6 monthly intervals for resident non-national customers. Between July and November 2008, a total of 4,963 Child Benefit claims have been suspended and it is estimated that a further 1,100 claims relating to December will be suspended. Of these it is projected that some 2,400 will have their claims terminated, resulting in a potential saving of €20 million.

2500 wrongly getting child benefit. Half a mill from Killbarrack alone. I think that is the tip of the iceberg.

[FamilyGuy]

I would imagine the threat of court proceedings as well as complete withdrawal of social welfare and having to pay back what you owed is enough for most people to settle out of court.

I'm pretty sure what happens is a letter is sent to the fraudulent claimer telling them what they have to pay back and an arrangement is made. Only the hardened fraudsters go to court.

While some people wont face court the reality is that a whole load of these people will, on appeal, get back their allowances. Quite often people get cut off, helps boost these types of stats about cutting fraud etc, and then the people appeal and get back the allowances they were rightly entitled to in the first place including the money withheld from them

[Odyessus]

Surely this is a problem?


2500 wrongly getting child benefit. Half a mill from Killbarrack alone. I think that is the tip of the iceberg.

We should never have allowed such a situation to develop in the first place.
Billions have been paid out in fraudulent claims in the good times, now when the government is trying to save money they will be accused of "attacking" some "vulnerable" group or other.

I appreciate that if these measures were taken when we we awash with cash, we would have seen editorials from Madam telling us how mean-spirited we were, not to mention the disapproving glances at European meetings.

A government should have the courage to do what is right for the state, and argue their case.

[Andrew49]

Question R24U wrote:

I propose:
- send a notice to every household of the amnesty.
- abolish distinction for jobseekers benefit/allowance, carers allowance, disability, back to education etc and replace with One Basic Payment (to reduce admin. costs)
- require (over 12 months rolling basis say using DOB's) every recipient to re-apply in person and with photo ID and waive date protection issues.
- employ temporary staff to sift through each application and cross-reference with Revenue, PRTB, HSE etc.
- prosecute, require to pay back, deport or jail (no more than a few weeks) anyone found to have been defrauding but didn't avail of the amnesty.

Ms Hanafin neglects to make reference to EU Regulation 1408/71 which allows any person in any member state receiving unemployment benefit to travel to another EU country in search of work, without losing entitlement to their original benefit. According to the legislation, the claimant is obliged to remain in Ireland for a period of four weeks after they become unemployed to look for work before leaving. After that period has elapsed, and having travelled to the other EU country, the claimant is then required to register with the relevant welfare authority there.

From this point on, the claimant is legally entitled to continue claiming unemployment benefit from Ireland for a further three months without having to return here to sign for it.

These stipulations compound the task of identifying potential cases of welfare fraud by Irish and foreign workers who have gone to other EU states. In their absence, the process of establishing whether an individual is drawing down their Irish-sourced unemployment benefit in another EU state is a relatively straightforward one.

Link

[Question R24U]

So the ONLY solution is a pan-european database, or closer eu co-operation. Or rescind the directive. Or abolish unemployment payments and replace with a Basic Payment. Either way it is an admin/political nightmare.
In that context would an amnesty not make sense?

[Question R24U]

What would be the downside?

[Andrew49]

Don't all people in the EU have some kind of unique PPS number?

[Murra]

Its a great idea. I'd run with it!

[Murra]

Nice to see some people around here coming up with ideas and solutions to the problems, instead of the usual faff.