With the government announcing yet another amnesty, this time for social benefit abusers, it would seem that what ought to be considered as an exception is being turned into an administrative rule.
Amnesties are always likely to raise issues of unfairness among those who play by the book, however, the government may well argue that, unless it resorts to such moves, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to correct anomalous situations.
This may well be the case but those claiming unfairness can hardly be blamed for feeling aggrieved. Millions of euros in undeclared assets have been brought back under a government repatriation scheme, proof that many do take up such opportunities to regularise their position when they are offered.
Recouping revenue lost to the government from social benefit abuse may be a more complicated exercise in view of the range of benefits paid out. However, it looks as if the drive is paying off, though the figure collected does not seem to come anywhere near the amount said to have been lost to fraud.
Even so, the €3.8 million collected through the benefit fraud investigations department is not insignificant. Social Policy Minister Michael Farrugia said it was the largest amount collected since 2006 when the department was set up. In that time, the department had recouped €31.7 million.
The latest amnesty was first announced in the Budget, when the government also announced moves to “ensure that the social security system incentivises work and discourages dependency while introducing measures to strengthen social cohesion and reduce poverty”.
Under the amnesty being offered, those abusing the system can regularise their position by paying 15 per cent of the amount defrauded and thus avoid tougher action. There are people who are experts at finding loopholes in rules and regulations and manage to get away with it, as particular cases of fraud that are discovered every now and then demonstrate only too well.
These people will get off lightly if they choose to come clean and take up the opportunity to regularise their position, particularly if they happen not to need social benefits at all as they have a regular income that enables them to live decently. They may even be in a position to promptly pay the 15 per cent of the amount they have defrauded.
On the other hand, there may be others who, for various reasons, may not be able to take up the opportunity. Although they may have knowingly been abusing the system, they might not have the financial means to pay the 15 per cent demanded under the amnesty. How will the government treat these people?
It is important too that the department becomes more efficient in its work of administering the system so that it will not create problems for itself and for those who receive social benefits.
As the auditor general has had occasion to remark, overpayment of social security benefits is due not only to incorrect or inaccurate declarations by beneficiaries, or failure to report changes in circumstances by recipients, but also to errors made by the department’s officers during the assessment process.
As to the efforts being made to reduce social dependency, this is desirable on a number of counts. In the Budget for this year, the government announced measures targeting single parents, long-term unemployed and young people who do not have basic skills.
This exercise and the drive to check social benefits abuses would need to be carried out on an ongoing basis. They should preferably also be accompanied by efforts aimed at bringing about a culture change in both spheres.