No administration has escaped criticism with regard to efficiency and accountability. Some departments may be better organised and run than others but, even so, it is always difficult to eliminate shortcomings altogether.

At the Department of Social Security for example, there is no doubt that good efforts are being made to recoup the substantial amount defrauded in social benefits over the years. However, it is difficult to accept the kind of shortcomings uncovered by the National Audit Office without questioning the way the department is being run, or, more precisely, how the units or sections concerned with the processing of applications for benefits are carrying out their job.

The Family and Social Solidarity Ministry came out dismissing the impression that the department is lax in its assessment of applications for means-tested non-contributory social benefits. Such an impression, it said, was incorrect, arguing the department exercised due vigilance as far as this was humanly possible.

Still, is it not strange that no checks were made of the personal details of many of the applicants? It is worrying that, although the department has the facility to review bank and employment details, in most of the instances reviewed by the Audit Office no evidence was found that this was done. According to the Auditor General, it was not even the practice to scrutinise the taxpayers’ profiles. These were only being used to look into cases where the lifestyles of benefit receivers had changed considerably or in situations that warranted investigation.

The ministry argued that the department carried out periodical reviews but, given the thousands of beneficiaries, it was impossible to assess each case, at least annually. So, like the Audit Office, it reviewed random samples and cases where there were substantial changes in circumstances or in situations warranting further investigation.

This is not good enough, even if the department has been recovering substantial amounts. Last year, the benefit fraud investigation department recouped €3.8 million and this year, up to October, €2.4 million. This means that over €34 million were recouped since the benefit fraud investigation department was set up in 2006.

Fraud records show some people go to great lengths to defraud the State. In its latest report, the Audit Office singled out a case of an applicant, a mother of nine, who failed to disclose the sale of three properties and the purchase of another two. Investigations showed the property she claimed to be renting was in fact her own and, while she claimed to be a part-time farmer, she had a considerable amount of livestock.

One past shocking case was of a serial fraudster who had managed to collect €75,000 in benefits he was not entitled to. He was found to have been receiving no fewer than seven benefits.

In the Budget for this year, the government announced an amnesty to benefit abusers wishing to regularise their position by paying 15 per cent of the amount defrauded. Since the deadline expired in February, it would be interesting to learn how many took up the offer and the amount recouped.

The department is also setting up a business intelligence unit which will be tasked with checking fraud cases at an early application stage. This, and greater efficiency all round, will help close the remaining loopholes in the fight against benefit fraud.