Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)

No, it is an interactive service. One is asked for one's name and PRSI number and if whoever responds is not the claimant, the system will switch off. It will also be location sensitive. In other words, if a claimant rings from outside the jurisdiction, the system will cut them off. The only way the system can be fooled is if a claimant is working and rings from the place of employment. We recognise this is an issue. On the other hand, if a claimant takes a half an hour off to sign on, the person behind the desk will not know this either. We are all aware that people take a day off each week to sign on. The improvements made will free many front-line staff to chase those considered to be high risk, those who might be working and drawing welfare. Staff will be free to conduct on the ground investigations. The aim is to identify and target risk.

The third area in which there is a huge saving to be made and a significant social objective to be achieved is activation. This involves putting in place an employment action programme and inviting various claimants to an interview, for example, when they are moving to jobseeker's allowance from job benefit or when they are signing on. They will be asked to consider a job, an education or activation opportunity. If they refuse and say they are not interested in any of these, it is only fair to send the investigator to ask them some really hard questions. There are savings to be made by identifying people who are working and drawing benefits. Any savings made will be applied to activation measures. This will be a great boon for those who are unemployed. We are all aware that the majority of unemployed persons are looking for work.

On the courts system, it should be noted that the Courts Service is an independent body established under statute to perform five functions, namely, to manage the courts; provide services for judges; provide information for the courts system; provide, manage and maintain court buildings and provide facilities for the users of the courts. Family law is administered in camera. Conveying information of the nature suggested in the amendment would be in breach of that principle because in a family law case the State is not conducting a prosecution, what one has are two people sorting out their differences in court. In addition, the functions suggested in the amendment, without the consent of the parties involved, would give rise to data protection issues. The Courts Service is an independent provider of services for both parties in a case, in this instance, a civil or family law case. An obligation of the kind suggested would involve the passing of information to the State, a third party, in a case which is private to both parties. In addition, maintenance is increasingly paid not through the District Court office but via bank transfers. Therefore, the Courts Service, would not have information available on the actual sums of money paid over. These are the difficulties involved. I recognise that we do not raise a huge amount of money in maintenance payments.