The Auditor-General has called for better efforts to clamp down on benefit fraud after finding a case where a trader carried out transactions worth €3.3 million while receiving a disability pension and sickness assistance worth €76,000. The case took place in 2008.
He also found a case where a man was receiving a pension for the visually impaired while taking part in boxing, and several cases where women were registered as having an unknown father while investigations proved otherwise.
The Auditor General said an audit had focused on the operations of the Benefit Fraud and Investigation Department (BFID), which is tasked with gathering evidence for determining whether benefit fraud is being committed. BFID’s reports are then submitted to the Department of Social Security (DSS), whose role is that of adjudicating submitted cases.
“The relationship between BFID and DSS is strained by their divergent views with respect to the administration of social policy. DSS prefers to err on the side of caution and only revokes benefits when absolute certainty of irregularity is attained. On the other hand, BFID relies on evidence that is logical and factual, yet not necessarily irrefutable,” the auditor said.
The auditor said the level of feedback provided by the Department of Social Security to BFID in the adjudication of cases was inadequate and undermined the process’ expected level of accountability and transparency.
A similar source of contention were instances when DSS exercised administrative discretion beyond the parameters established by the Social Security Act. In addition, there was no system of flagging risk with respect to individuals who had previously committed benefit fraud and they promptly re-applied for benefits.
The auditor said it had also investigated desk-based exercises. The future of benefit fraud investigations lay in improvements directed at such exercises, as such analysis would more fairly and comprehensively target beneficiaries presenting most risk rather than focusing on those who had a report lodged against them.
“Clearly emerging from the findings is the Department of Social Security’s weak enforcement function in relation to the collection of undue benefits paid,” the auditor added.
“Further compounding this situation was the fact that repayment rates were at times wrongly applied, with inappropriate documentation supporting these deviations from the legally stipulated parameters.”