Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I thank the Ceann Comhairle and my colleague for sharing time. In the time available, one can only deal with small aspects of the Social Welfare (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. One would prefer to have a longer debate which would befit important legislation such as this.

From time to time, we all need to be reminded that the purpose and duty of social welfare is to alleviate the impact of hardship on those who are vulnerable. While I agree with the need to cull abuses and fraud, it should never be allowed to be a means to deprive people of their rightful entitlements. I do not want to settle old scores but one issue takes me to the fair and this is the habitual residence clause which was introduced originally by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform to make it difficult for non-nationals in this country and was taken up by the Department of Social and Family Affairs.

The founding father of Fianna Fáil was born outside this country. He was born in Brooklyn as was a former member of my party and Minister, Richard Burke. If they had to seek State services such as social welfare or health services they would not qualify. They would be deprived because they would have to establish residency. People whose parents emigrated from here 25 or 30 years ago and who have returned to their homeland have been refused supplementary welfare, disability allowance and various means tested allowances on the basis of habitual residency. It is appalling.

I wish to discuss another old practice with regard to supplementary welfare for which another Minister has partial responsibility. It is not all the fault of the Minister for Social and Family Affairs and this is not a criticism of her. However, she knows this happens. If a couple who separate but have not gone through the legal process of separation have a mortgage, the mortgage must be paid or else they must both leave the house. If the wife remains in the house and applies for supplementary welfare in the form of rent support, she receives 50% of what is due to her because allegedly and theoretically the spouse has a 50% interest in the house. However, this has not been determined and the courts might decide otherwise.

I cannot understand why the Department should punish a person in these circumstances. I know responsibility for this is jointly shared with the Department of Health and Children which carries out the functions. However, there is no basis, legal or otherwise, for depriving the person in the house of full rent support. All that happens is that they lose the house and end up out on the road. They are subjected to hardship while slowly but surely and inexorably the law in implemented. They may have children. Why do we not cater for people in this situation?

We know about the regulations and guidelines. I ask the Minister to take a grip of the situation and deal with these two aspects because great hardship is being caused to a large number of people who ordinarily would have an entitlement but they are deprived by either the habitual residency clause or a stupid interpretation of the regulations by another Department.

See this speech in context