That Oireachtas Joint Committe on Social and Family Affairs… Social Welfare Fraud.

Now here are some useful figures gleaned from the transcript of the Joint Committee on Social and Family Affairs and the session dealing with Social Welfare Fraud. The impression that comes across very strongly is that welfare fraud is a relatively minor problem whatever the perception in the media. Fascinating too to see the old bugbears of one parent families and such like appear. And most telling to read of the rise in allegations by neighbours and others of welfare fraud…

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue: On behalf of the Department of Social and Family Affairs, the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform, the Department of Finance and the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, I thank the Chairman and members for their invitation to appear before the joint committee for a discussion on social welfare fraud.

In this presentation on behalf of the four bodies, I propose to provide the committee with background information on the Department of Social and Family Affairs’s control strategy and our integrated approach in implementing it. I will outline the challenges facing the Department from a control perspective and our efforts to deal with them which include a number of cross-departmental initiatives.

To put in context the Department’s control activities, it might help to outline the scale of business. The Department makes over 1.2 million payments each week and a further 500,000 on a monthly basis across more than 50 schemes. The Department processes in excess of 2 million claims per year and the budget for social welfare is €21.3 billion in the current year. The Department is very conscious of its obligation to safeguard this money and ensure it is administered in a manner that means the right people get paid the right amount at the right time.

A four-pronged control strategy has been adopted by the Department, namely, prevention of fraud and error at the initial claim stage, early detection through effective review of claims in payment, measures to deter fraud and the pursuit and recovery of overpayments.

Controls are exercised at initial determination of entitlement which is of critical importance in the deterrence of fraud and at subsequent stages during the claim life cycle. They include desk reviews of claim papers, home visits, the issue of certification letters/mail-shots to selected customers, database checking and medical reviews in the case of illness payments.

Key elements of the Department’s control strategy include risk assessments, surveys of the levels of fraud and error within schemes, scheme specific review policies, data matching initiatives with both external and internal parties and investigation of anonymous reports. These control tools ensure that review activity is targeted in the most effective manner. In addition, a number of the Department’s schemes have moved to a new computing platform which provides enhanced controls of claim management and processing with built-in validation and supports.

In regard to fraud and error surveys, the process involves inspectors reviewing a random sample of claims to assess the underlying levels of fraud and error and action being taken by scheme managers to address the fraud and error risks identified. Fraud and error surveys have been undertaken on the following schemes: 2003, jobseeker’s and one-parent family payments; 2004, child benefit and family income supplement scheme; 2005, disability allowance; 2006, PPSN allocation process and the illness benefit scheme; 2007, State pension non-contributory scheme and one parent family payment; and 2008, State pension contributory scheme.

So tell us about the fraud…

The level and types of fraud and error vary across schemes but customers typically incur fraud in situations such as failing to disclose their full means or increases in means; failing to disclose the true employment or residential status of their spouse, partner or dependants; claiming jobseeker’s payments when they are working; absenting themselves or their dependants being absent from the State; and working while claiming to be incapable of work.

Review policies focus control activity on the high risk schemes and on claims that have been identified in fraud and error surveys and risk assessments as having a higher risk of fraud and abuse. In 2007, revised review policies were introduced for the jobseeker and one-parent family schemes. In 2008, the child benefit review policy was agreed. This year review polices have been finalised for disability allowance and carer’s allowance. A policy for State pension non-contributory schemes is being finalised.

And what about reports of suspected fraud?

There has been a major increase in the number of reports of suspected fraudulent activity from members of the public. At the end of May 2009, 2,136 reports were received in control division in Carrick-on-Shannon compared with the end of May 2008 when 299 reports were received, a 714% increase. This figure does not include reports which were made to other areas or offices around the country. However, when investigated, a significant number of the reports do not lead to any savings as in many instances the individuals reported are correctly benefiting from exemptions and disregards under the appropriate schemes.

And costs saved?

Almost €476 million in social welfare payments was saved through fraud control measures in 2008, an increase of €29 million on the previous year. This year the target is over €600 million. Where overpayments occur the Department seeks to recover them and in cases of serious fraud, the Department will use all legal avenues open to it to recover the money defrauded and seek redress. Criminal prosecutions are taken against persons who defraud the social welfare payments system and employers who fail to carry out their statutory obligations. In 2008, 324 criminal cases were finalised in court, an increase of 86 on the previous year. A total of 354 criminal cases were referred to the Office of the Chief State Solicitor for the initiation of prosecution proceedings.

And the financial crisis?

The rapidly changing economic environment with large increases in the levels of unemployed poses challenges for the prevention and detection of fraud. The live register grew from some 175,000 in January 2008 to almost 397,000 at the end of May 2009, an increase of more than 125% and the projected average live register figure for 2009 was raised to 440,000 in the supplementary budget. This unprecedented increase in the live register and in the volume of jobseekers assistance claims has meant that social welfare inspectors have been concentrating on means testing new applicants and have a reduced capacity to undertake reviews.

The Department’s response to the challenges we face is a balanced approach that on the one hand, addresses service delivery issues through increased productivity, recruitment and training of staff, the introduction of process improvements and the establishment of back office supports for local offices and on the other hand, ensures control activity being targeted at high risk categories of claimants. Examples of this targeted approach to control activity in response to emerging threats include the following. The special investigation unit is undertaking more regular interviews of jobseeker recipients. Residency checks are carried out on those in high risk categories and involve a number of home visits. The frequency of the visits is varied so as not to establish a predictable pattern.

Tell us more about high risk categories?

Border regions have put an increased emphasis on controls on claims from applicants with a previous address in Northern Ireland. In addition, multi-agency vehicle checkpoints with officers from a range of public service agencies including the Garda Síochána, the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Social and Family Affairs and local authorities are operational. The lead agency for these checks is the Garda Síochána.

One-parent family recipients with earnings are targeted for review. The frequency of issue of mail shots to validate continued entitlement to child benefit has increased to three monthly for all non-Irish nationals.

The Committee members then weighed in with various questions… here’s a flavour…

Deputy Olwyn Enright: I welcome everyone and thank them for their attendance. Part of what we are doing is looking at the overall issue to see where improvements can be made. I will ask a few specific questions on different areas and then perhaps some more general ones…

here seems to have been a concentration on the issue of cross-Border fraud. Anecdotally, however, I am still hearing of the numbers being quite high in particular post offices. The numbers seem still to be greater than the population of the areas. How satisfied is the Department with what it has done in that area to date? Is there real improvement or is there still more to do? I accept it will not be done overnight.

The same question could be asked of international fraud. We all hear that such a person is flying in and flying out, or whatever, and it is difficult for anyone, for us and possibly for the Department, to verify the accuracy of such allegations. I would be concerned that there are only two staff from the Department of Social and Family Affairs seconded to the Garda National Immigration Bureau. Perhaps Ms O’Donoghue could advise me of the type of work they do. I am conscious that there are millions of people using Dublin Airport alone. I suppose it and Cork Airport would be the two largest airports, but there are other smaller regional airports around the country as well as the ports. Therefore, there is not a social welfare official available in all of those places. How does the system work?

I received complaints from people who work at Dublin Airport to the effect that there are not sufficient social welfare inspectors and that there is not adequate access to the Internet to allow those to whom I refer to carry out background check or verify information with the various international agencies. In addition, I have been informed that an expert on documents and forgeries is not always available. I would be concerned if the latter were the case. I have tabled parliamentary questions on this matter and I take the replies I received as being accurate. However, these replies can be worded in such a way that one is not provided with all the information one requires. Will our guests confirm whether the staff to whom I refer are available on a full-time basis?

Deputy Róisín Shortall: I welcome the members of the delegation and thank them for their presentation. The presentation contains a great deal of information. However, there is other information we did not receive which might prove to be of assistance. Will our guests indicate the level of fraud across the different schemes? Do estimates exist in this regard and what is our guests’ experience of established fraud across the various schemes? If such information were available, it would then be possible to target fraud. Will our guests indicate the schemes that are most prone to fraud?

What is international best practice in respect of tackling fraud? What is the position in other European states? How are our guests faring relative to their European counterparts? With more than €21 billion in payments, our guests are faced with a massive undertaking. The Department was obliged to gear up in a short period in recent times to deal with the huge increase in those claiming jobseeker’s benefit or allowance.

I do not like to use the term but I presume there is a “standard” level of fraud. Perhaps we could refer to it as an acceptable level but as far as I am concerned, there is no acceptable level. What is the standard across Europe in this regard? How is Ireland performing relative to the standard that obtains in other European countries?

I was interested in the big increase – of some 714% – in the number of anonymous reports of fraud. It was also stated that the vast majority of these reports did not stand up to scrutiny. How many of these reports were valid?

Many of us would favour a move towards the introduction of an electronic funds transfer system, particularly from the point of view of making savings. However, I presume the risk of fraud is far greater when it comes to electronic payments. How is it proposed to proceed in respect of electronic payments? I note what has been done in respect of jobseeker’s benefit and allowance. Is it envisaged that other payments will be made available on an electronic basis?

Deputy Seymour Crawford: …It is difficult sometimes for people to understand how others are in receipt of social welfare payments. I dealt with the case of a young man recently who is half way through building a house, on which he has a mortgage. He is living in another house but the half built house has been assessed as an income to him because it is a property other than the home in which he lives. When something like this prevents a person from legitimately claiming social welfare payments while others obtain payments fraudulently, it is difficult. I support the activities of the officials involved in fraud detection but I assure them that I will make representations on behalf of people whom I think are hard done by. I do not apologise for that because some people were found to be wrong without genuinely realising they were doing something wrong. However, where people are making fraudulent claims, everybody must stand behind the Department to make sure it is stopped, whether that is in the Border area or elsewhere.

Senator Nicky McFadden:
Some people in my area have contacted me about pensioners who have undergone vigorous reviews. The pension area is one in which I would say there is least amount of fraud. Is it necessary to review them so vigorously? They are vulnerable old people and have been quite upset. I have had three or four queries in this regard from just one small area.

And last but not least the remarkable Charlie O’Connor who appears to be sponsored by the people of his constituency to mention it at least once in every public utterance he makes… or is it the other way around?

Deputy Charlie O’Connor: I wish to be associated with the welcome to all our guests. This is an important meeting and this committee has been anxious to look at the situation. At a time of more pressure than ever on social welfare benefit payments, it is important we encourage as much control as possible and create a situation where more moneys are available for those in need.

In all of our constituencies we will always come across cases where claimants believe they are being put under a little more pressure than necessary. I have encountered many cases in recent times where people have been at least temporarily disqualified because the local office claimed they were not proving they were looking for employment. However, it turned out they were. I am concerned that the Department, in its zest to control these matters, which I support, may forget that genuine and vulnerable people who call to the local office may be caught up in the control mechanisms.

I am interested in the reference in the excellent presentation to the number of reports of suspected fraud from members of the public. The figures are incredible – an increase of over 700%. It was pointed out in the presentation – I presume accurately – that a significant number of those reports were found to have no basis. Is there any way the Department can give the public a message about this kind of busybody activity? I presume the number of reports is so high because people want to wind up neighbours or are upset about progress neighbours are making. Have the Department or other agencies a view on how this can be better controlled? I am sure much staff time and resources are wasted on checking these spurious reports. I accept that all calls must be dealt with, but we would be concerned about this putting even more pressure on staff at a time when they could be dealing with other claims.

Deputies Crawford and Shortall mentioned cross-Border fraud. I do not know much about the Border area; it is a long road from Tallaght, but one hears many myths about fraud, even in urban areas. The issue of cross-Border fraud and difficulties has been raised on other occasions, both in the Dáil and in committee. What progress has been made in that regard? Senator McFadden mentioned foreign claimants and again we hear myths and stories about what happens. I made representation recently to the Department on such an issue after a group of residents in my community came to me to say there were 15 people living in one house -not just at election time – who had suddenly gone to Lanzarote or some place on holidays. We hear about that sort of thing, but must be careful we deal with it in a responsible way. It can be an issue, as we all know from the stories we are told in our constituencies.

Another issue I wish to raise is how we deal with lone parent claims. There has been much talk on this. Somebody asked me some time ago what members of the Department or local authorities were doing hiding in bushes to see what company people had in their houses at 6 a.m. A more reasonable approach must be taken. Does the Department have a view on how it can make progress on this? Mention is often made of our late colleague, Séamus Brennan, who bravely said the matter required review. I share the view of Opposition Members who say there has been no political progress on this. I presume the Department spends resources on pursuing these matters, but wonder if there is a better way to deal with them.

And there you have the tone of the discussion in one. A more measured and vastly less antagonistic one than media reporting of the matter. There is even a degree of sympathy expressed to those on welfare. It’s hard to tell is this a function of the times that are in it. The influx of the middle classes to the unemployed in the past year has arguably altered certain perceptions – I’ve certainly never heard so much sympathy expressed in circles where once the unemployed and single parents were lambasted – and perhaps brought home the reality that unemployment isn’t a life choice for the overwhelming majority of people who find themselves there and never has been. I don’t want that to read as carping. I know what unemployment is like, and was last unemployed as recently as 2004. It’s no picnic for anyone however and from wherever they arrive at it.

Let’s not ignore either the reality that as the ranks of the unemployed swell they incorporate potentially hostile voters… and worse again from the point of the political system voters who vote. Which makes the lack of any serious fiscal stimulus package near-incomprehensible. Because those people who are eking their days at home watching their redundancy vanish rapidly and their mortgages collapse aren’t going to be giving FF a preference…

Deputy Olwyn Enright: What is the baseline for the level of fraud? Ms O’Donoghue is saying that as social welfare payments increase the Department will detect more fraud. Is she concerned that there are areas we are not yet reaching? Does she believe we are close to the maximum level and that it will just increase or decrease based on increases or decreases in the number of social welfare payments?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue: I think it is very difficult to give an absolute as to the level of fraud. We were asked whether we had information on benchmarking against international experience. It is very difficult to benchmark. The OECD has tried on a number of different occasions to compare this activity across countries. It has proved very difficult because of the difficulty in getting comparative data to match against international boundaries. In addition there are different institutional arrangements in different countries.

If I may divert slightly into the international dimension, we have a memorandum of understanding with our colleagues in the UK and Northern Ireland which means that we work very closely with them on sharing best practice, developing ideas and helping each other on specific projects. We try to take advantage of emerging ideas or best practice in other jurisdictions. The Department is also closely involved in an exchange of information, experience and expertise with a six-country network that expands beyond the UK to the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. There is a programme of conferences and networking that goes on with a view to taking advantage of whatever is emerging and working in those jurisdictions. We are very alive to reviewing this on a constant basis to ascertain what we can learn from what happens elsewhere and how it can be best applied in the Irish context.

The closest we can get to establishing the level of fraud is through the fraud and error surveys or an analysis of overpayments that are registered. We try to carry out between one and two fraud and error surveys every year. In my opening presentation I indicated when the last such surveys had been carried out on different scheme areas. It is only after the second or third fraud and error survey that we started to try to map the level of activity and the cost arising from that activity in a way that then allows us to identify high risk and targeting that risk with a view to making savings. Notwithstanding all that, obviously those fraud and error surveys have demonstrated that the overall level of fraud in the Department’s main schemes is very low. On the evidence we have assembled through those surveys it is less than 1% of expenditure. Obviously that varies across schemes. Deputy Crawford referred to pensioners and the kind of risk attached to payment of pensions versus the risks attached to payment of child benefit or job seeker payments.

We try to keep abreast of the issue through the fraud and error surveys and through analysing how overpayments were created in the first instance. They are not all attributable to fraud. Some of them are attributable to customer or departmental error. However, the levels of fraud are generally quite low, except in one or two particular circumstances. That in itself dictates the Department’s targeting approach to addressing high-risk categories.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: What are those one or two?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue: Regarding one-parent families, cohabitation was mentioned earlier. Some people are working and claiming jobseeker’s allowance. For example, in one-parent family payments, the fraud and error survey would have shown a fraud level of approximately 6.5% and that probably would have been one of the highest fraud and error levels across the Department’s schemes. That in itself led to policy reviews and a greater risk assessment of that scheme and different approaches that are now being taken to target what were considered to be the risk areas in that regard.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: Does Ms O’Donoghue have a corresponding figure for jobseeker’s allowance?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue: There is a health warning associated with figures for jobseekers in that the fraud and error survey was carried out in 2003. The changes as a result of fraud would have been of the order of 2%. I do not have figures for the expenditure liability resulting from that because this would have been in the very early days of fraud and error surveys.

Reference has been made to the move to electronic payments. The Department’s strategy involves moving to a full system of electronic payment. There are two types of electronic payment – EIT payments, which are made through post offices, and EFT payments, which are made through banks or into bank accounts. We have made significant progress with that strategy in the past 18 months. We expect to have a full system of electronic payment by the end of this year. We have worked in consultation with all the customer interest groups. We have targeted a huge information campaign at all the recipients involved.

Senator McFadden raised some issues relating to the book used for the one-parent family scheme. It is obvious that books will no longer be used when the move to a full system of electronic payment has been completed. The new regime will give us a much more immediate ability, when compared to the current reliance on books, to effect changes in circumstance, or to suspend or close down payments. When paper is used as part of the system, one is always catching up with potential cases of fraud. To remove that problem is part of the Department’s overall expenditure strategy. Maintenance recovery was mentioned—–

And to real-life cases…

Deputy Seymour Crawford: I would like to give Ms O’Donoghue an example of a specific case. I have already mentioned it on the record of the House. I refer to a case in which an inspector could not understand how an old age pensioner who had returned from England five years previously was able to survive on the pension he was receiving. The inspector decided that the person in question must have been doing something else. When the inspector asked the man how he feeds himself, the man said he sometimes goes up to his brother’s farm to work, and might get his dinner there. When the review of the man’s circumstances was completed, the man learned that the inspector had decided he was getting €100 a week from his brother for working on the farm and that his dinner was classified as being worth €50 a week. As a result, he was not entitled to any social welfare benefit. When I visited the farm in question, I noted that the wife of the man’s brother was an invalid and was not fit to cook any dinner or anything else. I also learned that the man’s brother was giving him nothing. As far as I am concerned, the inspector’s approach was totally over the top and cannot be justified.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue: If the Deputy wants to give us specific details of any case, obviously we will be happy to examine it.

Deputy Seymour Crawford: I have a written a number of letters on the matter.

What of more high-profile issues?

Deputy Róisín Shortall: To clarify the issue of cross-Border fraud, about which we heard a great deal, is it correct that six vehicles were stopped in one operation and nine vehicles in another?

Mr. Eoin Ó Broin: No, we had six checkpoints in the north west region with the Garda and a further nine in the north east.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: How many people did officials see in the six operations?

Mr. Eoin Ó Broin: We interviewed 169 people in the north west where six checkpoints were held and 194 in the north east where nine checkpoints were carried out.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: Does Mr. Ó Broin have information on the outcomes of the interviews?

Mr. Eoin Ó Broin: Of the 169 people in question, we identified 106 cases for follow-up action.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: What was the outcome of this action?

Mr. Eoin Ó Broin: While the outcomes are ongoing, in four of the cases we identified people were working and signing.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: Four out of 363 cases.

Mr. Eoin Ó Broin: Yes.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: Is that not an exceptionally low figure?

Mr. Eoin Ó Broin: We do not organise the checkpoints. They are organised by the Garda traffic corps and we have been asked to participate in them. While there are certain benefits from checkpoints, the main benefit noted by our officials on the ground is that they generate high visibility. We have succeeded in having the checkpoints coincide with the signing day at certain local offices and they have been particularly effective in tackling cross-Border fraud.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: If four cases of people simultaneously signing on and working were detected among 363 people stopped around the Border, it appears to indicate the level of fraud is not an issue.

Mr. Eoin Ó Broin: The particular type of fraud detected through the checkpoints – people working and signing for jobseeker’s payment – is just one element of fraud. Our primary concern earlier this year in terms of cross-Border fraud was not people working and signing but people from Northern Ireland purporting to be resident here.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: How many such cases were detected?

Mr. Eoin Ó Broin: I gave an example from the north-west region. In focusing on non-residents we targeted 94 applications for jobseeker’s allowance, of which 79 have been disallowed and only ten are still in payment.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: The outcome to which Mr. Ó Broin refers was achieved through stricter processing of claims rather than high visibility road checks.

Mr. Eoin Ó Broin: Yes.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: That is not the impression members of the public were given from media publicity surrounding the Minister.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue: We are trying to achieve a combined effect. The activity of the special investigations unit to which Mr. Ó Broin referred was targeted at what was perceived to be a high risk area. This was coupled with the deterrence and prevention effect of engaging in multi-agency vehicle checkpoints.

How about this?

Senator Nicky McFadden: The position on child benefit fraud and people who leave the country was not clarified. That is a big issue. When payments are electronic, in particular, people can continue to get them. I accept there is a three-month timeframe but how does the Department know when to stop payments?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue: I apologise to Senator McFadden, as she had raised the issue of certification and how it worked and I meant to deal with that.

Senator Nicky McFadden: That is okay.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue: Two forms of certification are issued for child benefit. One is employment certification, which relates specifically to European Union nationals who are working in Ireland but who are claiming child benefit in respect of children who are resident abroad. There is a residency certification process for non-Irish nationals, both EU and non-EU, who are resident in Ireland with their children and who are claiming child benefit. In both cases that certification process is now operating on a three-monthly basis.

The process in place requires the individual to complete a certificate or to provide further evidence, depending on whether it is employment or residence, and to submit that to the Department within 21 days. If the certificate is not submitted within that timeframe the payment is suspended and the matter is investigated further. The processing is automatic. Proofs are required, whether it be certification by the school the children are attending, or by a doctor or other person to back up the certification process.

Child benefit is paid to a significant number of people and the number of non-residents or non-Irish nationals who are claiming it is a small proportion of those people. We have to balance customer service with appropriate control.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: What figures are emerging from the controls?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue: Significant savings were realised in 2008. Through the certification process, payments to a total of 3,197 non-Irish claimants and 700 others were terminated. In addition—–

Deputy Róisín Shortall: Out of what total?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue: In total, there are approximately 6,610 non-Irish nationals claiming in respect of approximately 11,000 non-resident children.

Senator Nicky McFadden: Could we be issued with those figures? That would be very helpful.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue: Yes, certainly. We can provide information on that exercise and the outcome of it to the committee.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: I did not get the point about the outcome. How many claims were made and how many were disallowed?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue: I beg Deputy Shortall’s pardon. To clarify, in 2008 we issued approximately 70,000 residency certificates and approximately 11,000 employment certificates. Approximately 8,000 claims were suspended on foot of that exercise and approximately 5,000 were subsequently stopped.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: Is that 5,000 out of 81,000?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue: Yes.

And here’s something to consider…

Deputy Róisín Shortall: I have a question on the integration of the tax and social welfare systems. Has any progress been made on that? Would that not be the real solution? What is the view of both Departments on having photographic ID cards?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue: It is our intention to move to a photograph-based public service card.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: What timescale is envisaged for that?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue: A process is under way. Because the system will be extended to all welfare recipients, it will take time.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: I am talking about a national ID card.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue: It is a matter of Government policy whether there is a national ID card. In terms of moving to the next generation of social services card, it is the Department’s policy to move to a public service card that will contain a photographic ID.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: Is that a card that could become a national ID card?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue: It is certainly the intention to make that card capable of interacting with other public service organisations. Any scope beyond that would be a matter for the Government.

Indeed it would. I’d wonder at how much of a push there is towards a national ID card. And noting the mess that this has created in the UK is it likely that it could go any further here?

And the one-parent family payments?

Deputy Róisín Shortall: May I ask further questions on this area? Do the delegates have any figures on the number of parents who do not live with their children who are paying maintenance for the children? To what extent are parents pursued in regard to their responsibility to maintain their children? What is the Department’s policy on the registration of fathers’ names on birth certificates? Very mixed messages are being received by unmarried parents, especially unmarried mothers, who are often advised by staff not to include the name of the father on the birth certificate. What is the Department’s policy in that regard? In a number of European countries, there is a legal obligation to register the father’s name on the birth certificate. Perhaps that should be our starting point.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue: The Deputy will appreciate that the General Register Office operates under the Department of Social and Family Affairs but there is very specific legislation governing registration matters. To the best of my knowledge, it is not mandatory for the father’s name to be included. I cannot claim to be an expert on the legislation.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: It is not. Has Ms O’Donoghue a view on whether it would be desirable to require people to register fathers’ names?

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue: The policy is reflected in the current legislation. If that policy or legislation were different, it would allow for different courses of action. However, based on the policy in place, the system is as operated by the General Register Office and pursued by ourselves.

I will talk a little about the Deputy’s specific questions. As I stated, every claim for a one-parent family payment that is registered is referred to the maintenance recovery unit to establish what exactly is recoverable and whether there are any payments in place. This information can be provided in more detail to the committee. Let me give some examples. In 2008, for example, there was a total of 16,300 such cases examined by the maintenance recovery unit. In 14% of cases, there was no trace available in regard to the liable relative mentioned. In 23% of cases, the liable relative who had been identified was actually in receipt of social welfare payments. In approximately 13% of cases, the liable relative was either unknown or there were particular circumstances that prevented our making contact with him and pursuing the matter. In approximately 36% of cases, the income level of the individual in question meant there was no contribution due. There is a threshold above which maintenance payments are sought. In 13.5% of cases, a determination order was issued by the maintenance recovery unit seeking payment. I can give those details to the members separately.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: The figures are extraordinary.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue: What is extraordinary is the number of cases on which maintenance cannot be recovered by one means or another.

Deputy Róisín Shortall: Orders were issued in only 13.5% of cases.

Ms Niamh O’Donoghue: Yes, but for reasons underpinned by particular policy decisions on the threshold of income and the question of whether one is on social welfare or has insufficient income to maintain oneself in the first instance.

Anyhow, how was all this reported, well, you’ll get a taste here… here and here…