It is scandalous that a boxer managed to defraud the taxpayer of €21,465 in pension he claimed for allegedly being visually impaired when he was still practising the sport. His effrontery knew no bounds for he also provided security services.
The story is bad enough as it is; what makes it even more distressing to the ordinary taxpayer, who has to pay up to the last cent in tax due through the pay-as-you-earn system, is that when the authorities did find out about the fraud, they did not seek to recover the money.
If this is too hard to take, other cases are no less so, suggesting that, as the National Audit Office said in a report, deterrents against benefit fraud are weak and insignificant. However, somewhat contrasting with the situation as presented by the NAO performance report on government efforts to curb fraud, was the news, released by the National Office of Statistics almost concurrently, that the number of boarded out individuals was halved between 2004 and 2012, reducing expenditure on invalidity pensions from €35.8 million to €24.6 million. This is not an insignificant figure, though one has to take into consideration the fact that the drop took place within a span of no fewer than eight years.
Yet, however noteworthy this may be, it does not take the sting out of the performance report. It will be hard to ever forget the boxer’s audacity, more so when, according to the audit office, he owned a boxing club which, to boot, he advertised on Facebook. Whatever next?
The audit office reported another extraordinary case, that of a trader who carried out transactions worth €3.3 million when he was receiving a disability pension and sickness assistance worth €76,000. Unbelievable.
The police have now been asked to investigate the cases brought up by the audit office and the Social Policy Minister has set up a working group to analyse the recommendations made.
There does not seem to be an end to the extent some people go to defraud the State, not just in trying to evade paying tax but also when claiming benefit. What is rather worrying is that, according to the audit office, the relationship between the Benefit Fraud and Investigation Department and the Department of Social Security, which adjudicates the cases for benefit, is strained.
That may well explain why, while the Social Security Department preferred to err on the side of caution and only revoked benefits when absolute certainty of irregularity was established, the investigation department relied on evidence that was logical and factual, though not necessarily irrefutable.
Various management issues were found to be of concern. For example, the level of feedback provided to the investigation department was inadequate and undermined the expected level of accountability and transparency. Not only that but the Social Security Department exercised administrative discretion beyond the parameters established by the Social Security Act.
As soon as the audit report was made public, some people responding to the story on the internet lost no time in giving the findings a political spin. This is pathetic for fraud knows no political boundaries as past Labour governments found for themselves. Today’s government will find that the fight against fraud has to be kept up all the time.
Ultimately, though, checking fraud is not only a matter of administrative capability built on expertise in investigation and efficiency in enforcement but also one of greater national awareness of ethical and correct behaviour.