Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses for their presentations. I share the shock of my colleagues that this issue is not being monitored. It is completely unacceptable, especially if it was not monitored previously and the Department's title was then changed to include employment affairs in respect of which this is a key piece of work. It means the Department does not even have a baseline to move from. Given that the social welfare Bill is moving through shortly, resources should be allocated to recreate and find information forensically, looking, if necessary, at individual correspondence items from the Department on cases. That would give us a much more accurate and detailed picture.

Others have asked about the number of prosecutions taken. That is not the number of cases or determinations. It is the number of prosecutions. Prosecution in respect of fraud was mentioned extensively in the presentation. One of my key concerns arises from a particular case which I will not mention specifically. Rather, I will speak to the issues arising in relation to it. I have seen a detailed account and much of it was in the public realm in respect of a key case which took place over 18 years ago. However, it is important because, as the witnesses noted, there is no time limit in respect of these issues. It is important and appropriate that there is no time limit because this does not simply hurt people in the moment or when they become unemployed. When one denies someone his or her PRSI contributions, one impoverishes the person into retirement and old age because one is denying him or her a proper pension record. The damage done is significant. I note the Department's own slides. We have heard the figures from the unions which are very high and, I expect, because they have contact with so many members, accurate. Even on the Department's own figures, the potential loss to the State from bogus self-employment arrangements may range from €5,000 to €15,000 per worker per year. If action were taken, the Department estimates the potential gain at €30 million to €60 million per annum. It is a very significant cost to the State.

In the case of the example I referred to, we had a situation whereby the scope unit found someone was in fact an employee. That was appealed to the social welfare appeals office which made a determination on the basis of a social welfare inspection report. A member of staff of that company was cited at length in that determination and the decision of the scope office was overturned. Subsequently, a case was taken by the employee to the Employment Appeals Tribunal at which the company said the stated member of staff had never met with the social welfare inspector. This was later admitted by the Department which said there had been a case of mistaken identity on the part of the social welfare inspector. Nevertheless, no change was made and the determination of the appeals officer was not overturned. In this situation the person with the least power and most to lose, the vulnerable employee, had to try to take a case to the High Court rather than the Circuit Court because the appropriate channel of the Employment Appeals Tribunal had been closed off due to a misrepresentation by the Department which further failed to change its own determination. This is an example. Let us not dwell on the details, to which I am sure the Department will say it cannot speak. What I want to know is the following.

How many determinations by the scope unit have been overturned by the social welfare appeals office? What is the legal basis of the determinations made by that office as opposed to those made by the scope unit? What is the plan when a situation is determined later have been based on inaccurate information? What actions will be taken in this or other instances? Is there a policy on seeking to find these moneys?