Anna Mallia | Wednesday, 10 December 2008

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

That social security

Social security has always been a political football for any party in government. There is nothing wrong with this, except that the political mileage is gained at the taxpayers’ expense.
When the government effects an increase in the social security budget, the taxpayers detest such increase and the reason is twofold: firstly, because an increase in social security means that poverty is increasing and not diminishing; and secondly, because another chunk from their taxes is being devoted to social security when it could be utilised for others rather than for the benefit of the taxpayers themselves.
With the inflation that is hitting us, if the government continues to increase the social security budget there is a very strong probability that the divide between the ‘poor’ and the taxpayers will increase, and we augur this will not reach a point where we will encounter a new and more dangerous form of racism between us. Do not get me wrong, we are not against helping the poor and the needy; what we are against is helping the lazy and the abusers.
There is no doubt that the enforcement in the social security department is still very weak. Whereas the department is geared towards giving out money, it is not geared at ensuring that the money goes where and to whom it is supposed to go. The few cases that are brought to book by the department are mostly those that start from the complaint of a private citizen who most of the time acts out of spite, rather than out of social conscience.
I can remember a few cases, for example that of the ‘unknown father’ who was not allowed to see ‘his’ children and reported the mother of his children to the social security department to say he had been paying her maintenance. Or the case of that separated wife who reports her husband’s partner, who is receiving social assistance when she is being maintained by her husband. These are the type of cases that are pursued by the enforcement officers in the department of social security but rarely do they, ex officio, investigate any cases of abuse.
And abuse is rampant, and in many cases the department does not need to increase its enforcement section. All it needs is common sense. In the area offices that have sprouted all over Malta and Gozo, the department receives pieces of paper in the form of a balance sheet from many of the self-employed in the town or village, stating their income and expenses and making sure that they do not exceed the required threshold for social security perks. Even the officers who work in these area offices know that these statements are false, but yet they feel helpless and they carry on with the process of their applications for rebates and allowances.
Up to now the social security department has failed to understand that the taxpayer who declares the minimum income may have other assets, and these come in various shapes and sizes such as expensive cars, boats, assets in the name of wives, companies and assets pertaining to such companies. I fail to understand how the department has still not deemed it fit to investigate the assets of these people when in this day and age with the push of a button, just as the department can check the bank accounts of the applicant, it can also check the other assets of the applicant and his or her spouse’s. But it seems that for the department of social security, the husband and wife are not part of the same household!
Another check that can be done from the luxury of their offices concerns the addresses given by the applicants, which addresses have to be separate from that of other people receiving social security allowances. This means that if a single mother is receiving an allowance, for her daughter to be eligible she has to declare that she is not living in the same household. I know of cases where the addresses supplied to the department were those of garages and shops, but the department does not question these addresses and authorises their demand for social security payments.
Then we have the saga of maintenance payments and the abuse this begets on the system of social assistance. First of all, it is not fair for the department to give social assistance to the wife or husband on a mere letter from a lawyer saying their client is not receiving maintenance, without firstly verifying the veracity of such a declaration and without requesting a court order. Secondly, the department does not follow up to make sure that when there is a court order, such court order is still in force. And thirdly, very rarely does the department try to recoup the money given out from the spouse to the beneficiary spouse, instilling the belief that all the social security department does is provide maintenance.
A lot has been said about the false declarations submitted by so-called single mothers and there is nothing further to add except that the department is now an accomplice to these false declarations submitted by the mothers, by not ordering the mothers to take court action so that the father shoulders his responsibility. I must say that the Family Court nowadays is doing the work of the social security department in not allowing the abuse to continue, by refusing to accept applications for maintenance by single mothers against unknown fathers, after these are ‘revealed’ by the mothers (for the sake of maintenance); and by refusing to accept cases requesting the court to register children’s fathers as “unknown”.
There is undoubtedly very little knowledge given to the taxpayer about the social services that are available. The taxpayer wrongly believes that he is not entitled to any benefits because he earns more than the maximum allowed by the social security law. But this is not the case as there are benefits that apply to everybody, irrespectively of income.
A case in point, which I discovered recently, is the allowance given by the State to mothers who breastfeed and this is given irrespective of one’s income. Who knows what other benefits exist which we are still unaware of?
It is no wonder many tell you that it is always the same people who pester the social security offices and it is always the same people who get the social security benefits. It is amazing how these people know practically every social benefit that is in store and it is a shame how the social security department, paid by our own taxes, is geared more towards these people than for its providers, the taxpayers.
Another odd thing that I discovered lately is that whoever receives any form of social security is bound to inform the area office whenever he or she is away from these islands. In effect, for the period you are abroad, such allowance is suspended. I do not know how many people know of this regulation and why this regulation is being applied also to people who travel to EU countries. I think that for any social security payment, it is the duty of the department to remind the beneficiaries that they are bound to inform the department every time they are away from these islands and not take them by storm when they are reported to the department.
Minister Dalli, you have a lot of work to do in this department.

PRINT THIS ARTICLE

Any comments?
If you wish your comments to be published in our Letters pages please click button below.
Please write a contact number and a postal address where you may be contacted.